Fight for privacy only beginning
How much of your privacy are you willing to surrender in exchange for security? How concerned are you that the government has the capacity to trace your comings and goings? How bothered are you by license-tag readers, surveillance cameras, red-light monitors, websites that track your movements, retailers that collect and share your buying habits?
The privacy debate — always on a low simmer — came to a boil recently when Miami New Times reported that the Miami-Dade Public Safety department was seeking a grant to test a system called Hawkeye II, a so-called persistent surveillance system.
The Hawkeye has the capacity to fly high over a target area taking one photo a second. Should an event of interest occur — say a burglary, a shooting, a suspicious fire, an armed robbery — the device can backtrack a frame at a time, tracing the suspected perpetrator to his or her pre-crime home.
Hawkeye sounds like a worthy crime-fighting partner. Making the streets safe is nearly always a winner.
Still, the program has a “big brother-is-watching-you” feel that troubles civil libertarians. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that constant surveillance of a 35-square-mile area is an unquestionable invasion of privacy. Metro Mayor Carlos Gimenez sees it another way. “You have no expectation of privacy when you step outside,” he told The Miami Herald. “I have no expectation of privacy in my backyard.”
Shortly after the Hawkeye program hit the papers and airwaves, the Public Safety department dropped the idea, however intriguing it sounded. For the time being, Miami-Dade residents won’t have to worry about an eye in the sky peering down at all that unfolds below.
But that does not mean the issue has gone away. Privacy debates will only intensify as technology evolves and fear of crime and terrorism grow along with it. And Hawkeye — or some more sophisticated version of it — will be back for a second look. In fact, it’s getting that look in Baltimore; Dayton, Ohio; Philadelphia; and Compton, Calif.
In Juarez, Mexico, Hawkeye helped police detect the formation of a violent gang and stopped a riot in the midst of its formation. Based on testimonials like that, Persistent Surveillance Systems, the company that developed the technology, is winning supporters both in law enforcement and with the public.
A generation ago a surveillance system capable of recording all human activity in a 35-square-mile swath would have been universally rejected. Today the same technology, while not without critics, is regarded as just another tool in the fight against terrorism.
Do we have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in our backyards? Is the expectation of privacy different today than it was 28 years ago?
Judging from the criminal journey of suspected pot grower Michael Riley, the answer back then wasn’t so simple. Riley was charged with growing marijuana in a building on his five-acre farm on the strength of surveillance from a helicopter 400 feet overhead. At his trial, Riley successfully argued that he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and the warrant leading to his arrest was flawed.
The state appealed and won. Riley appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. He won.
The state took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state won. Riley had no expectation of privacy. So that is the standard in force since 1989.
In this age of the ubiquitous surveillance camera and the airport pat down, have we surrendered our expectation of privacy? Is it too late to get it back? Do we feel safer without it? Do we have a choice?
The privacy debate will only intensify in Florida.
Evolving technology and fear of crime and terrorism are important factors.