ABOUT US  • COLUMNISTS   NEWS/EVENTS  FORUM ORDER FORM RATES MANAGEMENT CONTACT

Gregory D.

Lee

 

 

Read Greg's bio and previous columns here

 

February 6, 2009

Smile for the Spy Satellite Camera

 

Come on, admit it. Fess up. No use denying it. You know who you are. You're the type of person who shudders when you learned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is going to use spy satellites for domestic security and law enforcement missions. You panic because you think your right to privacy will be invaded and that the government will use the satellite to track your every move.

 

Well, calm down and get over it. This may come as a shock to you, but the government doesn't care what you’re doing, so long as it’s legal. 

 

Before the election I wasn’t surprised to read in The Wall Street Journal that liberals in Congress asked that the satellite program be further delayed pending a clear legal framework on how the program would operate. This request came up when there was a raging debate about the rules governing wiretaps and the interception of emails of suspected terrorists operating inside the country. Well, police can take still photos of you in public places and it is not a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, and it does not require a court order.

 

The notion that a DHS satellite taking photos of public places invades one's privacy is a myth on the scale of other long-standing myths such as racial profiling, global warming and medicinal marijuana. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and the phrase "right to privacy" isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. Look it up.

 

I'm writing this because I know that many liberals, and some conservatives, are unnecessarily alarmed about the invasion of their privacy. These worry warts should seriously consider why the DHS wants to use spy satellites and cameras to enhance the nation’s security.

 

Satellite technology increases the security of people attending major sporting events like the Super Bowl, baseball games and other outdoor events. It can help investigators determine if a particular vehicle, boat or other conveyance they are searching for is somewhere without the knowledge of the bad guys.

 

Washington D.C. police now monitor live images from dozens of surveillance cameras located throughout high-crime areas of the city. One officer, who might be recuperating from a minor injury, can observe several monitors to look for criminal activity. The cameras serve as police manpower multipliers.

 

Personally, I will feel better the next time I visit our nation’s capital, now that I know the police are using a video surveillance system. It just might deter some creep from going through my wife's purse or picking my pocket. And if such events do take place, it will give the police a tremendous investigative lead in identifying a suspect. What's wrong with that?

 

Today, videotaping public places by government and private industry is so commonplace that in many criminal trials juries expect to see a videotape of the actual crime. In fact, if the police do not have a tape of a significant event related to a specific criminal investigation, such as a dealer selling drugs to an undercover police officer, defense attorneys will often accuse the police of having something to hide.  

 

Video surveillance has been proven to be extremely effective in identifying suspects during the investigations of the terrorist events in London and elsewhere. It provides a permanent record of who was there and what they were doing. Knowing there is a surveillance camera watching you as you loiter in or transit through a public place serves as a deterrent to anti-social behavior, like robbing someone or planting a bomb.  

 

So if you are offended by a government satellite taking your photo, or the police videotaping you in a public place while you are engaged in purely innocent behavior, I feel sorry for you. Paranoia is a terrible thing, but if you seriously consider all the benefits associated with modern video surveillance, your paranoia should give way to a feeling of security.

 

Come on, admit it.

 

Gregory D. Lee writes for North Star Writers Group and is a criminal justice consultant. He can be reached through his web site: www.gregorydlee.com.

                          

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

 

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

 

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

 

This is Column # GL063. Request permission to publish here.

Op-Ed Writers
Eric Baerren
Lucia de Vernai
Herman Cain
Dan Calabrese
Bob Franken
Lawrence J. Haas
Paul Ibrahim
Rob Kall
David Karki
Llewellyn King
Gregory D. Lee
David B. Livingstone
Bob Maistros
Rachel Marsden
Nathaniel Shockey
Stephen Silver
Candace Talmadge
Jessica Vozel
Jamie Weinstein
 
Cartoons
Brett Noel
Feature Writers
Mike Ball
Bob Batz
Cindy Droog
The Laughing Chef
David J. Pollay
 
Business Writers
D.F. Krause