Below is my column today in USA Today on the Boston bombing and the call for new security laws and expanded surveillance. I have been doing interviews trying to caution against these calls for immediate action — a mantra that we hear after every attack no matter the cause. I am in Chicago today and was struck by how quickly Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel called for more surveillance cameras in a city with one of the largest surveillance systems in the United States.
For civil libertarians, all terrorist attacks come in two equally predictable parts.
First, there is the terrorist attack itself — a sad reality of our modern life. Second, comes the inevitable explosion of politicians calling for new security measures and surveillance. We brace ourselves for this secondary blow, which generally comes before we even fully know what occurred in an attack or how it was allowed to occur.
Politicians need to be seen as actively protecting public safety and the easiest way is to add surveillance, reduce privacy and expand the security state. What they are not willing to discuss is the impossibility of detecting and deterring all attacks. The suggestion is that more security measures translate to more public safety. The fact is that even the most repressive nations with the most abusive security services, places such as China and Iran, have not been able to stop terrorist acts.
While police were still combing through the wreckage from the Boston Marathon, politicians ran to cameras to pledge more security measures and surveillance. Indeed, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel demanded more cameras in response to the Boston attack. Chicago already is one of the most surveilled cities in the United States. Emanuel’s solution: add some more. It is a perfectly Pavlovian response of politicians eager to appear as champions of public safety.
We need to resist the calls for a greater security state and put this attack into perspective. These two brothers built homemade bombs with over-the-counter pressure cookers. They placed the devices in one of the most surveilled areas of Boston with an abundance of police and cameras. There is only so much that a free nation can do to avoid such an attack. Two men walked in a crowd and put two bags down on the ground shortly before detonation.
No one is seriously questioning the value of having increased surveillance and police at major events. That was already the case with the Boston Marathon. However, privacy is dying in the United States by a thousand papercuts from countless new laws and surveillance systems. Before we plunge ahead in creating a fishbowl society of surveillance, we might want to ask whether such new measures or devices will actually make us safer or just make us appear safer.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
nick spinelli 1, April 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm
I agree w/ the trepidations of those vis a vis surveillance. However, there is no expectation of privacy when you’re in public.
==========================================
We are talking about the kind of public we expect and want.
We already know what kind of “private” we expect and want.
We want a public with no dicks in government period!
You want the government to lock down cities, beginning with liberal cities like Boston (San Francisco next folks?), every time a couple of people are accused of something but never charged because they die before trial?
And the only one keeping the city in lockdown all day is a 19 year old kid.
That makes certain authoritian things way too “very easy.”
Chicago had 26 killings over a short span of time recently, but nobody went all stark Hollywood all of a sudden and demanded martial law.
JT has it right … we are headed in the WTF direction.
Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee.
We need cameras with sound in every room, hallway, stairwell, and elevator where politicians can be found. We need ankle gps bracelets on every politician. Only then will I fell safe.
The police state will not feel comfortable until it knows the actions and whereabouts of every citizen at every moment. Of course, unless you want to buy truck loads of AK47s or thousands of rounds of ammunition, then you can do as you please. Also, I wonder if they will also call for increased oversight of chemical and fertilizer plants since they caused more death and destruction than “terrorists”.
Without getting into the Constituional issues of continuous surveillance of all citizens, the pragmatic problem with all these cameras is the volume of information they gather. Who can really review and analyze this material? Who will? No until someone gets killed. Will it lower crime? Ask Chicago.
Politicians have already eroded so many of our Constituional rights that many people just shrug but it is a serious matter. I’ ll bet many of the more surveillance crowd also oppose gun control. Go figure.
To Justice H, there will be no viewing of 99% of the tapes for the simple reason that there will be no reason to. if there is a shooting or other crime committed in the area, THEN you can bet it sure will be used and viewed.
The police have a hard time getting witnesses to testify especially in gang related shootings out of fear from the gangs. So having more tapes and cameras will get around this problem and hopefully over time, make it less likely for gang slaying to continue. This will aslo stop some crime as more crooks are captured thanks to this new technology. There is nothing on earth that can prevent all the attacks that we have had, but it sure will make it harder for criminals to get away.
Reblogged this on euzicasa and commented:
!
Dear Prof.Jonathan Turley, I am a regular reader of your post,I have a problem and I don’t know if you could be of help but,after reading most of your posts,I believe you may give me attention. Let me know if you want to assist before pouring my heart out. Thank you sir. Yetunde Raji(Mrs).
Sent from my iPad
Chicago’s surveillance system is working so well to keep crime down…along with its gun laws, of course. We should all copy these in our cities. (Sarcasm, for those who might think I’m serious.)
Raff,
During the summers, crime is at its worst in almost evey major city in the United States. The countdown to criminal activities starts June 1st (or whenever school ends).
By the way, do you or anyone against cameras in these ‘hot spots’ live in these areas? If you do, then you would applaud these cameras! If you don’t, then I can assume that you don’t care either way?
Your article has been chosen by SouthWeb Editor to be ReBlogged . To see your article, visit http://www.southweb.org. Thanx for this article! So open and so straight! Cheers!
I agree w/ the trepidations of those vis a vis surveillance. However, there is no expectation of privacy when you’re in public. That said, The Teeny Tiny Mayor of Chicago is a good example of the WORST type of pol. That’s the ones who use a tragedy to scare people and get them to give up their rights. It seems the goal of both govt. and media is to scare the shit out of people. And, The Weather Channel is one of the biggest culprits. People panic and run for the hills if Mike Seidel is in their town
While I agree with the concerns about privacy, the fact is that once you leave your home, you have lost privacy. So while it is true that such increased surveilance poses risks in the wrong hands, as long as we have all of our freedoms of press, speech, and religion, I see no problem from this. As long as we can control the lawful use of such devices, then I am willing to install more of them. We cannot afford to have police on every street, but having cops on every street will not mean a loss of our freedoms or privacy. The cameras are the best alternative and are no more intrusive of our privacy than putting street lights on streets to light up the area to enable people to see more of what is going on.
The only danger I see is what happened in Houston with the red light cameras. They were supposed to be for safety, but in reality the whole point was to generate revenue for the city. Since I was a victim of one, I had to pay a rather steep fine. Houston outlawed these cameras, and I fully supported that. The reason I hate those cameras is that I got a ticket even though I had come to a complete stop when turning right on red. I later found out that 85% of all tickets were written for incidents like mine. It turns out that the operator of the cameras had put in a THREE second limit for writing the ticket. You had to be completely stopped for THREE seconds before turning. The law only required that one come to a complete halt before proceding. So the camera company was in effect writing new laws. We definitely need to keep watch for such abuses in installing more cameras.
Raff,
I’m not sure of your position here… Are you for more government intrusion in the public….
I see the, this government being more covert than the nanny state of Hitler…. And the nazi party….
Oh look..
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/17/flying-while-arabic-two-passengers-removed-from-boston-flight-after-speaking-arabic/#comment-544114
Entirely predictable and possibly impossible to stop
RWL.
We need more cameras in City Hall, not out on the street!
Time for electronic chips in every person that is a citizen, resident or visitor. Total surveillance 24/7. Perhaps that will satisfy them, tho’ I doubt it.
We need more cameras for the entire south and west side of the city of Chicago! Then, here in STL, We need cameras for the entire city and north county (suburb).
The U.S. has a long tradition of passing bad laws for good reasons (eg RICO).
Unfortunately, politicians rarely repeal those bad laws.
Professor,
Welcome home. I don’t listen to Rahm on any subject.