New aerial surveillance system provides safety with less privacy

How often have we tuned into our local news station and watched a crime happen on video? How often have these videos provided us with enough information to catch the suspect? Furthermore, how often have these videos not captured enough? 

According to The Washington Post, new surveillance technology has been issued, which allows for coverage of an area "the size of a small city." Although these aerial cameras would not be able to read specific details such as hair color and license plates, they would be able to provide enough data to identify a location or person.

Ross McNutt, president of Persistent Surveillance Systems, spoke highly of the new cameras to The Washington Post. 

These cameras have already been used at public events such as the Ohio political rally where Senator John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008. They have also been flown above Baltimore, Philadelphia, Compton, California and Dayton in demonstrations for police. 

They have also been used in traffic impact studies, for security at NASCAR races and they were requested by a Mexican politician who commissioned the flights over Ciudad Juárez.

Despite the obvious benefits of cameras such as these, the issue of privacy will arise. 

Joel Pruce, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Dayton expressed his opposition to the plan due to its oppressive nature.  

"You know where there's a lot less crime?" Pruce said. "There's a lot less crime in China." 

Of course, the question that follows would be: why? 

According to NPR, China is becoming a "surveillance state," installing more than 20 million cameras across the country. 

In Chinese cities, these cameras are on highways, in public parks, on balconies, in elevators, in taxis and in the stands at sporting events. Officials say the cameras help combat crime and maintain "social stability." 

So I guess my next question is, would you rather be safe or sorry? Is the invasion of privacy worth the security?

McNutt's goals for this new technology includes a "steep" drop in crime, rising property values, better schools and lower incarceration rates. His hope is that the overhead surveillance will deter those tempted to commit crime. 

Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl, supports McNutt's efforts and has proposed inviting the public to visit the operations center to see how the technology works. 

"I want them to be worried that we're watching," Biehl told The Washington Post,. "I want them to be worried that they never know when we're overhead."

As mentioned before, these advanced cameras do have limitations. People cannot be clearly seen on the footage as well as their actions and clothing or lack thereof. 

So, what is the point? McNutt intended to increase range and with advances in technology, the precision of the image will improve. 

In my opinion, these cameras are needed. We probably don't want as many as China, but they are necessary. Too often I have watched the news and seen cameras too location limited to record an entire crime and it frustrates me. A camera that can only see a certain space of footage is as good as broke to me. 

These cameras would be able to cover large amounts of space and therefore capture more footage. A single person might not be able to be seen, but if they leave the crime scene and go into a bank or another building, that footage can be looked at to assess the person's physical traits or location. 

The slack from the aerial cameras can be picked up from smaller cameras surrounding the immediate area. 

I highly doubt the government is concerned with an individual littering or jaywalking when a murder is being committed or a bank being robbed.

My safety is worth what some may consider an "invasion of privacy," and whether people want to accept it or not, theirs is too.

cmart10@brockport.edu