Limit Government's Use of Surveillance Technology Before It's Too Late

We can't stop technological advancement, but we should limit government misuse of it.

One of the constant themes in dystopian movies and novels is the idea of the ever-present "surveillance state"—a terrifying world where the authorities are watching our every move via a system of cameras on every street corner. How can we freely live our lives if the State always is monitoring our conversations, ready to whisk us away for some thought crime or indiscretion?

In George Orwell's "1984," Big Brother always is watching. "If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself," the novel explains. It's been 75 years since that book's publication—and only 22 years since the cinematic release of "Minority Report," which foresaw a world where the Pre-Crime Department arrested people based on its predictions of future crimes.

In that relatively short time, humanity has become accustomed to a level of technological intrusion that was previously unfathomable. Most of us have mixed feelings. We've seen great advancements in medicine, food production, manufacturing, and information, but our society also has built the infrastructure for a frighteningly intrusive government.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported on one city's typical use of Artificial Intelligence: "On any day in Long Beach, residents encounter dozens of technologies that collect their personal information.… Police patrol cars scan license plates. A camera logs how many vehicles pass through an intersection. Smart water meters track each time a resident turns on their tap. Beachgoers heading to the sand enter their license plate number and credit card information into a mobile app to pay for parking."

That list is a mish-mash of good and potentially worrisome technologies. It's hard to complain about smart meters, which simply are modern versions of meters that water agencies have used for decades to assess use charges. Technology can help the government improve public services. We've all adapted to (and benefit from) the app-based world. There's no going back to an analog time.

Most of us have also invited helpful technologies into our homes ("Alexa, please tell me …") and our cars. I automatically get a Google timeline email that shows me exactly where I've been over the past month and how much time I've spent walking, driving, or sitting on the couch. This is the work of private companies that (usually) have no ulterior motive other than selling us stuff.

The problem—with or without high technology—revolves around government and its access to and use of any such data. It's one thing for a parking company to scan my license plate to facilitate payment—and quite another for the city government to use such technologies to follow my movements or to use iffy face-scan technologies to arrest me.

As the article noted, California has passed two ground-breaking data privacy laws. Yet they seem so typical of our state, which is run by government-expanding progressives who see private firms as the source of every problem. These laws impose significant burdens on companies that are trying to develop and market innovative products. They do nothing to restrict governments from misusing information to undermine our civil liberties.

"In 2020, Long Beach and Pasadena faced scrutiny for sharing data from license plate readers with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency despite pledges not to do so," the article explained. So now Long Beach has developed a "digital rights platform" that, according to its website, will "boost transparency by providing residents with detailed information about the technologies we deploy and how the City uses the data it collects."

The city deserves credit for promoting transparency, but as always cities and other governments need tough restrictions on their ability to track our movements, store the information, and monitor our behavior. We've seen the results of out-of-control government monitoring in countries as diverse as China and Great Britain. Recent local examples should be enough to generate legislative efforts to constrain local and state governments.

Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown reported this month that San Diego-area police "are putting up a creepy surveillance tower under the auspice of stopping sex sellers and sex buyers from meeting. The prostitution surveillance tower…will record video of anyone who happens to be in the area." It's silly. Anyone who wants to engage in illegal behavior will be smart enough not to do so in front of that huge structure.

The real concern comes from less obvious, highly intrusive technologies. Police agencies have the habit of pushing the envelope on such matters, after all. The ACLU reports on a case in Massachusetts, where police installed a tiny video device on a utility pole to surveil a family all day. That's a better example of what might be coming. That's what's so worrisome.

Technological advancements are here to stay, but the key to halting the "surveillance state" is to enforce strict limits on government rather than focusing on companies that create technological marvels. Once dystopia arrives, it's too late.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.