Call me Nostradamus

Just caught this story from The Hill in which Sen. Joseph Lieberman calls for more surveillance cameras.

Yeah, the dateline is July 1, my post on this topic was July 1, and today is July 6, but I hadn't seen the article or heard his comments prior to making this observation (which I actually made publicly on June 30 during the RIM Renaissance conference). Besides, it didn't take Nostradamus or much imagination to make such a prediction.

I will point you to this quote from Mr. Lieberman, though:

“I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely. And of course, we can do it without compromising anybody’s real privacy.”

What exactly does "real privacy" mean? What does Lieberman think it means, and is that the same as what you or I think it means? And, ominously, do we want Congress to determine what it means under conditions of high anxiety over a possible terror threat? Debate still rages over the long-term implications of the Patriot Act. Let's not feel pressured to jump to a decision on surveillance and DNA only to suffer under the same burden of regret.

Mike

Chilling Implications

I turned on the television Friday morning to news of the failed terror attack in the UK. While the MSNBC report cycled through a video loop of images from the scene, and as Joe Scarborough and his team provided as much as was known at the time and the few updates that were available, one thing struck me.

The news reports made much of the fact that the London is, perhaps, the most CCTV/surveillance camera-saturated city in the world, and that the lack of an explosion meant there would be forensic evidence to be checked against Scotland Yard's extensive DNA library, and that both factors would likely contribute to quick arrests in the case.

Good news for investigators in the United Kingdom, but chilling implications for those of us here in the United States.

I know this event will influence the ongoing liberty/security debate here in America. As a nation we're already paranoid about some future act of terror, and we're constantly being told that we need to fear this shadowy enemy called terrorism. If the events of this past weekend result in a stronger push for and greater acceptance of remote security camera networks, and an undermining of opposition to extensive DNA cataloging, it will not be welcome news.

Using fear as a means of achieving legislative change is poor public policy. Loss of liberty should never be tolerated by patriots.