According to the World Health Organization, surveillance is the “systematic ongoing, collation and analysis of data and the timely dissemination of information of those who need to know so that action can be taken” (WHO). In addition to the ethics behind the use of surveillance, we question whether there is a line drawn for governmental action. When does recorded behavior warrant action?
Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow, brings this into question. In the book every citizen of San Francisco is being recorded and watched in attempt to catch terrorists. As a result, many are caught cheating on spouses, dealing drugs, skipping school, etc.
One of the first examples of observable surveillance in Little Brother appears when Marcus and Darryl attempt to break out of school to attend a Harajuku Fun
Security camera used in school hallways. Source: Outdoor Security Camera
Madness game in the city. In order to pass the gait-recognition detectors, which monitor stride length, shadow movements, and walking patterns, the boys place rocks in their shoes to alter their steps. Previous to this surveillance system the school had face-recognition cameras, but it had been deemed unconstitutional in a court, so the schools removed them.
Marcus and Darryl encounter another form of surveillance when executing their escape. Darryl has a library book with him and it has a GPS chip in the barcode that allows the library to follow where the book has been.
These methods of surveillance are amplified and improved after the terrorist attacks in San Francisco. Additional surveillance is implemented, such as closed circuit television cameras in all classrooms and corridors and monitoring subway and bus usage. Every move is tracked and stored for future use, so that any irregularity in one’s behavior becomes suspicious. In chapter seven, two police officers approach Marcus and question him on the usage of his bus pass. He refuses to answer their questions, so the officers take him home. This excerpt from Little Brother represents one discussion of surveillance in the book on page 39:
Officers: “Marcus here declined to tell us why his movements had been what they were.”
Marcus’s Mother: “Are you saying you think my son is a terrorist because of how he rides the bus?”
Officers: “Terrorists aren’t the only bad guys we catch this way,” Zit said. “Drug dealers. Gang kids. Even shoplifters smart enough to hit a different neighborhood with every run.” (Doctorow, 39).
Marcus’s mother’s reaction signifies the issue of privacy—especially amongst children.
An example of bus usage surveillance. Source: The Guardian
When is it okay to monitor children, if ever? And if it acceptable to observe them, when is okay to act on surveyed material? Does the material need to be physical, such as a video of the child performing an illegal act? Or can electronic material be enough to act on?
There are many dimensions that must be taken into consideration when thinking about the ethics of surveillance. If the government tracked an individual and saw that they had purchased products containing the materials need to create a bomb, would this warrant action? What if the products were purchased over the time span of a year, a month, a week, a day? Is one scenario more suspicious? What if that person also had a degree in chemistry? Would there be more justification in warranting action then?
In Little Brother, the government takes action and questions people solely due of suspicion derived from a change in behavior. In this case, the government has determined that any suspicious behavior warrants action through questioning and further observation. We have come to the conclusion that it is only acceptable for a child to be monitored if the child and the guardian of the child are aware of the surveillance. In order to act on electronic or physical surveillance there must be a significant threat to the safety of oneself or others, and finally, children who have previous criminal or delinquent behavior should be monitored more frequently.
In today’s world, there is no parallel to this amount of surveillance, or at least that we know of. It is generally agreed upon that surveillance systems are in place to keep us safe, and that any suspicious behavior warrants action against the party acting in a way that is illegal or may cause harm. However, as technology continues to advance it is important to address the legality and ethics surrounding surveillance. Acting on surveillance can be harmful, if the surveyed material is misinterpreted and an innocent person is blamed or questioned unjustly. As a society how are we going to navigate through these challenging questions?