Big Brother's Watching

“We understand these aren’t perfect bio-markers to measure overall health, but they do have the virtues of still being relatively good, easy to measure, and not too expensive to monitor. In the future it is possible that we will change or replace these bio-markers with superior alternative ones, if/when they are available and not too expensive to implement.”

Free Market Libertarian Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, in a leaked letter to his employees about a new health program offering higher store discounts to “Eligible Team Members” with the right blood pressure, cholesterol, and BMI.

That's the problem with a profit-driven, employer based healthcare system in which people are "rewarded" for being healthier. Along with making something like healthy food less accessible to those who need it most, it makes personal matters -- like your cholesterol level and weight -- you're boss' business. His bottom line trumps your privacy.

“As to the thugs and less-than-human garbage who hounded him into submission (so they believe), it is only through grassroots efforts such as 'adamsblock' that they can be exposed and neutralized.”

“…next assignment is to have live footage of TL being burnt to the ground. but of course, the scum of TL has to go with it. remember, garbage feeds the fire.”
(From comments on SFGate about a recently removed Tenderloin webcam)

The story of Adamsblock.com here in San Francisco seems simple at first. Adam Jackson set up a couple of cameras from his apartment overlooking Taylor Street in the Tenderloin, a seedy section of downtown San Francisco. Adamsblock.com became popular, got a tremendous number of hits from all over the world, and was embraced by neighborhood groups as a crime-fighting tool. When a graffiti group held up a banner before the webcams advertising their website, Jackson, who felt it was encouraging graffiti, deleted the image.

That was when the threats began.

Unfortunately, Jackson had posted his address, his email and his telephone number. He began getting emailed threats. Pictures of Jackson and his girlfriend were posted on another website. Someone phoned his place of work accusing him of being a pedophile. The bullying became so outrageous that Jackson posted an “apology” in response to threats of people “coming after him” if he didn’t, and took down the website.

According to the SFGate article: “with his apology, Jackson announced something else. The site will continue, but not under his direction. An unnamed party already has a camera up at a different Tenderloin street corner.”

The article is framed as a “little-guy-faces-down-thugs” story, with writer C.W. Nevius offering us the following reassurance at the end:

Jackson said at least three other sites have sprung up independently, and there has been interest in linking all of them together through ourblock.com. It is possible that neighborhoods all over the city will have 24-hour cameras. That was Jackson's idea all along.

"People have already started doing this themselves," Jackson said. "There's no way to stop it now."

This, I’m afraid, does not leave me, as Nevius plainly intended it to, with the urge to leap to my feet and cheer.

I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no use for the kind of Internet bullies who made Adam Jackson’s life hell. That’s why I’ve written so frequently in the past about sites like Free Republic that encourage, and sometimes even abet cyber-bullying. And I am not going to join the chorus of people berating Jackson for posting his personal information. That may have been unwise, but it does not make him and his girlfriend fair game.

In addition I confess that I like webcams. Had I known about Adamsblock before all this happened, I probably would have logged on regularly.

But…

Reading over the comments to this story dredges up a host of issues about privacy, the Internet and surveillance that many of the commentators plainly didn’t intend. Perhaps the most succinct example I can provide is the following comment:

big brother is watching, can be a good thing. spies do it, of all kinds, spouses do it, homeland security does it, and so on. cam away no matter who you are as only those who have something to hide will protest the invasion on a public street.

The comment is signed “tacr.”

It’s possible, I suppose, that there really is someone whose parents either named him or her “tacr” or who has adopted that as a legal name, but I doubt it. “Tacr” is almost certainly a pseudonym.

What’s the matter, tacr? Got something to hide? Ashamed of what you’re posting? Why not stand proudly and publicly behind what you write? After all, only those who have something to hide would object to signing with their real name….right?

We all know why, of course, and it’s not necessarily because tacr is “ashamed” of his or her comments, or is hiding something unsavory. It’s because, as Mr. Jackson himself discovered, posting your real name online can result in harassment, even when you’ve not done or written anything you consider wrong. It can open a door that leads directly to your offline life, a door you might prefer to remain firmly closed.

There are drawbacks to the extensive use of pseudonyms online. The comments I quote at the beginning of this piece are examples, and one reason I have mixed feelings about aliases. Hiding behind a false name makes it easier to post dehumanizing, irresponsible and indefensible garbage, including direct and indirect calls for violence –

– kind of like being on a street without cameras makes it easier to get away with writing graffiti on the sides of buildings, or trolling for hookers, or urinating in public.

If it truly was “Jackson’s idea all along” that 24-hour cameras be posted all over San Francisco” then I’m sorry, I can’t be counted on as a supporter. It’s one thing to have a single, discrete camera posted on one street-corner, offering a little slice-of-San-Francisco-life to the world. The idea of anyone, private citizen or public official, being able to watch me as I wend my way through the city, noting the regular path I take to work, the stores I go into, the friends I visit, the meetings I attend, the newspapers I buy, is another thing entirely.

Yes, yes, I know, this is supposed to “protect” me but frankly, I’d sooner take the chances I’ve taken for most of my life when I’ve walked down streets – some of them quite dangerous – without either Big or Little Brother keeping an eye on me.

Especially when there are commenters like the ones I’ve posted, people who might label me as scum and garbage simply because of where I live.

"When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house." Raw Story 12/6/2008

I’ve never been a big fan of reality shows, but I think I might get behind this one. A former Texas police officer has started his own reality show, Kopbusters, in which corrupt cops are “stung” on camera. In this case, Kopbusters set up a house with Christmas trees growing under light equipment frequently used by people growing marijuana:

The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster's attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster's secret mobile office nearby.

The Channel 7 news story connected to this article, is by the way, very badly put together in that it omits the information about affidavits that explains why this raid makes the police look bad. A deliberate omission, or journalistic incompetence? Who knows?

Context about why this issue is important can be found in a New York Times article from 2007 about a case where an elderly woman was shot to death by police raiding her house in a botched drug bust. After an arrested drug dealer pointed out her house as a place where they could find a kilogram of cocaine:

Instead of hiring an informant to try to buy drugs at the house, the officers filed for a search warrant, claiming that drugs had been bought there from a man named Sam. Because they falsely claimed that the house was equipped with surveillance equipment, they got a no-knock warrant that allowed them to break down the front door.

First, according to court papers, they pried off the burglar bars and began to ram open the door. Ms. Johnston, who lived alone, fired a single shot from a .38-caliber revolver through the front door and the officers fired back, killing her. New York Times 3/27/07

It’s going to be very interesting to watch what kind of reaction this new reality show gets.

According to the AFP, ”new controversial FBI guidelines are about to "go into effect" that are, according to Attorney General Michael Mukasy “designed to better protect the country from terrorist attacks."

For an experienced reader of news, the date on the article, the construction of certain sentences and the repetition of certain words in this short article stand out as red flags. Combine a Saturday dateline with a gassy quote from a government source like “the FBI and Department of justice more broadly have set priorities for and reorganized their activities to prevent further terrorist attacks against the American people.” Mix in some statements from other sources that include most forms of the words “controversial, “concern” or “troubling,” and you know you’ve got something that deserves your attention.

And when you add to this the repetition of a word like “guidelines” with nary a specific about those guidelines, what you’ve likely got, dear readers, is a potentially explosive bit of information carefully camouflaged in a weekend news-dump.

Reading about these guidelines in this piece is like playing a game of twenty questions. I picture Mukasey standing before us, a wicked smile on his face as he hugs the guidelines to his chest and shakes his head, barely able to suppress his good-natured laughter as he offers us clues about the surprise he and the FBI have in store for us all.

The Guidelines are “for FBI operations,” we’re told. No, they aren’t the old proposed ones that “met strong criticism from congressional committees last month.” These guidelines “comprise 50 pages dealing with five areas of FBI investigation, including criminal, national security, and foreign intelligence.” These guidelines will protect us. These guidelines will make the FBI “a more flexible and adept collector of intelligence.” These guidelines “will be available to the public.” These guidelines “reflect consultation with Congress as well as privacy and civil liberties groups.”

Has to do with wiretaps? Involves dossiers on American citizens? Bigger than a breadbox?

Hints come, of course, from the sidelines, which is where words like “troubling” and “concern” are introduced. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy complains that the guidelines give the FBI the power to use “intrusive investigative techniques on Americans without requiring any evidence of wrongdoing…” but the money-shot comes at the end of the piece, which concludes with a quote from the ACLU:

"..the guidelines allow a person's race or ethnic background to be used as a factor in opening an investigation, a move that the ACLU believes may institute a racial profiling as a matter of policy.”

So, “evidence of wrongdoing” is no longer required, but race and ethnic background can be “used as a factor in opening an investigation,” -- and the ACLU believes this may “institute racial profiling as a matter of policy?”

“May?” I’m curious about the alternate interpretation offered by anyone who doesn’t think this institutes racial profiling as a matter of policy.