Loss of freedoms tend to happen incrementally rather than immediately

Josey1

Loss of freedoms tend to happen incrementally rather than immediatelyby Sonia ArrisonAmerica's greatness stems from principles of liberty such as freedoms of speech, association and religion. There are many potential threats to these freedoms, including government collection of biometrics, a technique of identifying people by scanning and quantifying unique physical characteristics such as * structures, voice patterns and fingerprints.Some hail biometrics as a new way to defeat terrorism. But before the government mandates a system that classifies Americans according to their physical makeup, we should consider the dangers. Currently, the two most popular schemes are face-recognition systems-cameras that attempt to find criminals by matching pictures of known lawbreakers with everyone in a crowd-and national ID cards containing photographs and fingerprints.Face-recognition systems first entered the public dialogue when law-enforcement officials used the technology to scan the faces of fans attending Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa last January. While the technology did not identify any terrorists, it did flag some minor criminals.The potential benefits of *-recognition technology are obvious. If the government installs a camera on every street, subway system and shopping area, then law enforcement might find it easier to track down and catch known felons. But a good case can be made that doing so would lead the nation down a perilous path. It's not that biometric systems are inherently worrisome, but they could be dangerous if they are used to expand government power.Advocates of face-recognition technologies often point to Britain as a place where government use of closed-circuit cameras is ubiquitous but liberty appears intact. All is not as it seems there, and Britain is moving incrementally toward a devastating loss of personal freedom. George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen recently traveled to Britain to examine the effects of the cameras and discovered some interesting facts. Consider:Officials in Britain told Rosen that no terrorists had been caught using the technology, and there was no hard evidence that crime rates were affected. In fact, the violent-crime rate there went up during 2000. Still, the cameras continued to proliferate because they gave the public a feeling, however false, of security. It is worth noting that one of the likely reasons no terrorists were caught is because many terrorists are not suspected in advance of their crimes and, if they are, they likely use disguises.If a false sense of security was the only flaw with the increased use of cameras, perhaps they wouldn't be so threatening. But Rosen found other problems.He writes that, in Britain, "the cameras are designed not to produce arrests but to make people feel that they are being watched at all times. S The people behind the live-video screens are zooming in on unconventional behavior in public that in fact has nothing to do with terrorism. And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid." This is where the problem lies.The technology can be used to pressure individuals into acting according to majority norms because they worry they will be identified and persecuted. For example, a Muslim may not walk into a mosque, or a gay couple may avoid public displays of affection. These problems are reminiscent of the world George Orwell conceived in 1984. In Orwell's vision of "English Socialism," Big Brother monitors all citizens through omnipresent cameras called "telescreens." A "Ministry of Truth" replaces freedom of expression.Most proposals for the use of face-recognition technology in the United States have been limited to matching faces with a database of criminals in limited areas such as airports and stadiums. But it is easy to see how calls for increased screening could arise. In Britain, cameras multiplied after the murder of a 2-year-old boy in 1993. The cameras did not aid in finding the criminals, but they did record the prelude to the crime and led to an outcry for greater surveillance.It is important to understand that loss of freedom tends to happen incrementally rather than immediately. The cameras in Britain originally were intended to focus only on criminals. Now they focus on everyone and, in particular, those who are doing things law-enforcement officials don't think they should be doing.Some might argue that when one is in a public place such as a street, one should expect to be observed by many people, including law-enforcement agents. This is true. However the government, unlike businesses, can compel our compliance. If it gains the ability systematically to watch our movements and can combine that knowledge with other databases, the example no longer is akin simply to being observed by passive bystanders.The situation then turns to one of being profiled and stalked by an entity that can back up its actions by force