| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | The Rise of Civilian Surveillance | |
<
< | Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. For example, a New York Times article entitled “Black Lives Upended by Policing: The Raw Videos Sparking Outrage” provides readers with 34 cellphone and dashboard camera videos that display police brutality http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/19/us/police-videos-race.html. One of the videos features cellphone footage of yet another unarmed black man, Alton Sterling, being tackled, held to the ground, and eventually shot by two white officers. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment. With retaliative surveillance and the ability to capture and share evidence of brutality, individuals can challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice. | >
> | Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. For example, a New York Times article entitled “Black Lives Upended by Policing: The Raw Videos Sparking Outrage” provides readers with 34 cellphone and dashboard camera videos that display police brutality. One of the videos features cellphone footage of yet another unarmed black man, Alton Sterling, being tackled, held to the ground, and eventually shot by two white officers. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment. With retaliative surveillance and the ability to capture and share evidence of brutality, individuals can challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice. | | | Social media platforms, such as Instagram and X, add to the impact of these videos as isolated incidents can transform into broader conversations and national controversies. For example, on X, hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #NoJusticeNoPeace have become a battle cry for movements seeking systemic change. According to a PBS NewsHour? Report, the instancy and convenience of social media allows users to share raw, emotionally charged content, which helps to foster solidarity and drive action amongst its viewers. Civilian footage and its visibility forms somewhat of a protective shield, and the surveillance can be seen as a form of resistance and retaliation. | | | Civilian and government surveillance can enhance safety, offer accountability, and be a preventive measure for wrongdoing. Filming police interactions provides folks with a sense of security and empowerment. Many believe that dashcam/bodycam footage is often manipulated and altered to produce a particular narrative that aligns with law enforcement. Therefore, civilian documentation or and the recording of officer misconduct can deter law enforcement from brutalizing others as it provides an unaltered truth. Government surveillance, however, is often motivated by national security concerns, crime prevention, and an effort to maintain “law and order.” | |
<
< | Surveillance’s primary intent, to deter misconduct and offer safety, backfires when it is perceived as an intrusive weapon that threatens privacy and overreaches rather than offers accountability. Surveillance contributes to a culture of invasive monitoring that infringes individual rights, affects decision-making, and threatens privacy. (Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212.) For civilians, overuse of surveillance causes individuals to censor their speech and lose autonomy, principles that are foundational to the United States’ “democracy.” (Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)) Rather than provide civilians with a sense of security, the increased surveillance fuels folks’ mistrust of law enforcement, Alternatively, for law enforcement, constant surveillance can make officers hesitant to act during critical moments, which compromises their ability to make proper judgment calls and perform their duties (Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)). Retaliative surveillance makes officers fearful of public backlash for any action they take, even those made in good faith. Therefore, it risks exacerbating police inaction, since some officers may prioritize themselves and their well-being over community engagement and public safety. These dynamics have bred a tense, adversarial relationship between officers and the civilians they’re expected to “protect.” As a result, community trust has been lost and the potential for a collaborative relationship has nearly diminished. | >
> | Surveillance’s primary intent, to deter misconduct and offer safety, backfires when it is perceived as an intrusive weapon that threatens privacy and overreaches rather than offers accountability. Surveillance contributes to a culture of invasive monitoring that infringes individual rights, affects decision-making, and threatens privacy. For civilians, overuse of surveillance causes individuals to censor their speech and lose autonomy, principles that are foundational to the United States’ “democracy.” Rather than provide civilians with a sense of security, the increased surveillance fuels folks’ mistrust of law enforcement, Alternatively, for law enforcement, constant surveillance can make officers hesitant to act during critical moments, which compromises their ability to make proper judgment calls and perform their duties. Retaliative surveillance makes officers fearful of public backlash for any action they take, even those made in good faith. Therefore, it risks exacerbating police inaction, since some officers may prioritize themselves and their well-being over community engagement and public safety. These dynamics have bred a tense, adversarial relationship between officers and the civilians they’re expected to “protect.” As a result, community trust has been lost and the potential for a collaborative relationship has nearly diminished. | | |
Solutions & Conclusion |
|