Key takeaways
Surveillance powers deserve scrutiny regardless of who holds office.
This week’s podcast revisits our Flock discussion, including developments since the original essay.
When I published “The Surveillance State Has a Logo,” the conversation kept going in the comments. Clearly, this was something worth spending more time with.
So that’s what we’re doing on this week’s R: On Everything.
With the midterm elections a few short days away, there’s an additional reason to revisit the subject. We’re deciding who gets to exercise government power, and we should be thinking about the powers they’ll inherit.
An election can change the people in charge while leaving the surveillance infrastructure available to their successors. Whatever confidence we have in today’s officials, we ought to consider what someone else could do with the same tools.
Which limits would we want in place when someone we don’t trust gets access?
In this episode of the R: On Everything podcast, I return to Flock Safety and the questions its camera network raises about privacy, public safety, and accountability. I also explore developments since the original essay, the investigative benefits that make these systems appealing, and why replacing a surveillance company doesn’t necessarily resolve our objections to the surveillance.
If you joined the original discussion, there’s more here to consider. If you missed it, the episode stands on its own.
Tell me in the comments
What would officials need to demonstrate for you to support—or oppose—a surveillance system in your community?