Do Americans Really Want to be under Surveillance? The Politics of Polls on the Surveillance Issue

"I love Big Brother".

-- G. Orwell, 1984

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--4th Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

The provisions of the constitution of the United States, and of this state, are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.

--West Virginia Constitution 1-3. Continuity of constitutional operation.

_________________________

Front page Drudge report, and no doubt to be roaring through AP wires to every local news media, was this "news item" (consider how this narrow survey qualified as news) from ABC (the same that brought news of the "National Intelligence Estimate" and other recent "terrorist attempts":

Surveillance Cameras Win Broad Support

Majority of Americans Favor Extra Safety Factor of Cameras

The inference is plain and clear, this is propaganda for political purpose, released to the public. BUT, this so-called research is based upon ONLY ONE QUESTION in a survey conducted. http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1041a5Surveillance.pdf

This hardly passes for thorough research on the subject yet is paraded as if it is justification to enact and broaden the Leviathan rising Homeland Security system (similar to the total surveillance system in the UK) and local justification for police and crime prevention implementation. CAN THIS REALLY BE CONSIDERED THE DEFINITIVE RESEARCH OR OPINION GATHERING OF AMERICANS ON SURVEILLANCE?

Opinion polls measure, at one moment in time, "public opinion" by a particular statistical methodology which can have significant errors or distortions by

a) how questions are asked,

b) whom the surveys are able to contact,

c) the representative sample of a very small group of participants that might be subject to particular bias in the research, and

d) the timing of the polls corresponding to the context of recent events, news, or other public information programs.

Other research articles on this subject demonstrate that the very methodology on this particular subject of surveillance and privacy is faulty because of the very nature of just whom is surveyed in these polls. See here:

Research article: The Public Politics of Opinion Research on Surveillance and Privacy (pdf file)

A prominent criticism of opinion research is that it can force people to commit to opinions

on issues about which they had previously thought very little and which are only

tangentially relevant to their daily routines. The above anecdote, however, accentuates the

simple but important fact that surveys occasionally address matters that fundamentally

structure how some people live their lives. We want to dwell on this point in the context

of public opinion research on issues of surveillance and privacy (hereafter

surveillance/privacy). In particular, we accentuate the relationship between survey

response rates, contact rates and public concerns about surveillance/privacy.

This research article then explains how the methodology and demographic used in these polls on this particularly topic skews the results heavily toward a particular position:

Surveys are themselves essentially a form of surveillance that some individuals routinely interpret as a

privacy invasion. The issue of differential response in this context represents a classic

instance of a methodological difference that can produce a practical and political

difference. This is because we can expect that the people who systematically make

themselves unavailable for such studies would be precisely those individuals with the

greatest concern about surveillance/privacy. Findings for such studies are consequently

skewed towards what we might characterize as a "pro surveillance" position. It is

therefore particularly alarming to hear politicians appeal to the results of such surveys to

justify new security measures as something the public wants.

And so their conclusion about such polls on this particular subject is this, which inquiring minds ought to consider before concluding that the American population, as reported on Drudge, wants to be under surveillance:

Public opinion surveys on surveillance/privacy are an extreme instance where we can

expect a degree of important non-randomness to be structured into response rates.

The very factors which these surveys seek to document public attitudes towards

surveillance/privacy will, for a subset of the population, be intimately connected with

behaviours that would disproportionately predispose them to be excluded from such

studies. Individuals concerned about increasing surveillance or reduced privacy rights

would, for example, be expected to have a greater penchant for unlisted telephone

numbers.

APPLICATION

The polling numbers then for the subject of measuring public opinion on surveillance and privacy issues by the very nature and demographics of just who those surveys reach make it an unreliable measurement of comprehensive American public opinion.

What we DO know, and what is unmentioned, is what we published in our article here, that CCTV and surveillance cam studies in the UK, where they have long been pervasive, by the government itself prove that SURVEILLANCE DOES NOT DETER CRIME OR PREVENT CRIMINAL EVENTS. There are other better and more reliable methods of getting tips on crimes "going down" and that is the general public which 911 operators will tell you frequently call to report suspicious activity or crimes already. Read our article again:

Mayor Danny Jones wants to bring Big Brother to West Virginia

SECONDARY APPLICATION: RON PAUL and National Polls based upon Listed Phone Numbers and LAN lines.

These same polling methods, also, by direct implication, would greatly affect just who answers polls for particularly political representatives strongly associated with this issue, e.g. Ron Paul! Could this be the answer to why in national polling Ron Paul receives small numbers while on the internet (which reaches a broader audience than the limited public audience via LISTED PHONE NUMBERS AND/OR LAN LINES, INSTEAD OF THE GROWING VOIP PHONE SERVICE) he is the MOST RESEARCHED NAME and has more YouTube and other hits than other republican candidates by a landslide? Obviously the research would suggest this is the case.

Consider this Georgia GOP straw poll on July 4th, and just who faired better, Ron Paul or the Mayor who promotes the greatest threat to the freedoms of Americans:

A Fourth of July straw poll for Republicans

Thursday, July 5, 2007, 07:41 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Year after year, the Fourth of July gathering by the Cobb County GOP is one of the largest in the state. On Thursday, 247 cast votes in a presidential straw poll.

To no one's surprise, Fred Thompson — who has a fund-raiser in Atlanta on Friday — was the leader. But the fact that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney finished second and third may be significant. Possibly. It was just a straw poll.

Jason Shepherd, the Cobb coordinator of the Georgia Draft Fred Thompson Committee, sent us the break-down:

Fred Thompson: 30 percent;

Ron Paul: 17 percent

Mitt Romney: 15 percent

Mike Huckabee: 13 percent

Newt Gingrich: 12 percent

Rudy Giuliani: 10 percent

John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore: 1 percent

No small wonder that Giuliani has decided to avoid straw polls like the prominent one coming up in Iowa! Giuliani, McCain to Pass on Iowa Straw Poll

By Michael D. Shear

Mayor Danny Jones wants to bring Big Brother to West Virginia

As WSAZ reported earlier this week:

Charleston Mayor Danny Jones wants to double the city user fee (the dollar a week fee charged to everyone who works inside city limits) and spend some of the money for surveillance cameras.

Jones believes putting cameras throughout Charleston will make the city safer.

"If criminals know they could be picked up on camera they might pick another city to prey on," Mayor Danny Jones said.

Actually, WSAZ's headline for the article on their website stated stated Major Jones "wants to blanket the city with surveillance cameras to deter crime". In other words, this republican "conservative" mayor wants to bring "Big Brother" to West Virginia via the capital city.

One could say that he wants to do to Charleston what Guliani did to New York City, make it a police-state city of the Orwellian mode (recall military-fitted police and arrests of lawful protesters at Republican Convention), under the "plea of safety and security". Is this what West Virginia really wants--to be a total surveillance grid like (disarmed) Great Britain, or New York or Chicago, "free citizens" being monitored 24/7? What will happen to "Mountaineers are always free", when the government increasingly claims exceptions of "necessity"!

Adding insult to injury (and ignoring thousands of vociferous complaints) this will all be paid for by doubling the infamous "user fee" (like a "privilege tax") to those who work in Charleston, even if they live outside it (i.e. "taxation without representation"). Truly there is nothing conservative about this taxing, pro-gambling Mayor! Have West Virginians really considered this issue carefully (for if permitted here it will expand to all cities), or will they listen to the security pundits on talk radio and bow to the claim of "necessity" for law enforcement?

A very different consequence other than the Mayor's design could occur to the detriment of the city: "If criminals know they could be picked up on camera they might pick another city to prey on." Not so fast Mr. Mayor, one could also say this:

"If CONSUMERS know they could be picked up on camera they might pick another city to SHOP in!"

Given the unpopularity of the user fee, now proposing to be doubled, and some calling for boycotts of Charleston shopping, this could already be well under way. Has the Mayor considered the viewpoint of free Mountaineers as consumers who do not want to be recorded on camera for going about their own business? What exactly is a "high crime area" and what did the reporters mean by "blanket the city"? No doubt this would be expanded constantly until the cameras are common place.

Mayor Jones needs to know, and so do metro Charlestonians before he proceeds, that both his premise and conclusions about "deterrence" and "security" are presumptive and faulty, as well as it being a direct threat to both "freedom" and "privacy" from government intrusion that both West Virginia's and the U.S. Constitution have embedded in supreme law:

1. The promise of increased safety and security as a crime deterrent appears to be propagated by the "terrorist-security" merchandisers (who are aggressively lobbying governments, playing the fear card since 9/11, and making irresponsible claims as much as pharmaceutical companies on their products) making inflated promises while pushing their hi-tech toys for law enforcement. THE CLAIM THAT SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN CITIES DETERS CRIME SOUNDS GOOD, BUT STUDIES HAVE PROVEN IT TO BE FALSE. The United Kingdom is far ahead on the use of surveillance cameras and therefore should be a good judge of their effectiveness. Major London media reported the results over a year ago in no uncertain terms:

Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.

Home Office researchers who studied 14 schemes across Britain found that only one had brought a clear fall in the local crime rate. [One in 14!]

While there was strong public support for CCTV before it was installed, opinion began to shift when people realised the cameras made little difference....

....The report's author, Professor Martin Gill of the University of Leicester, said: "For supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and did not make people feel safer."

The only one of the 14 schemes found to be a success was targeted at car parks, where it led to a significant drop in vehicle crime. Other schemes in city centres, residential areas and hospitals produced no clear benefits.

Would it not be wise to consider this expensive venture by predecessors who have made liberal use of it? Where is the "crime deterrent" in this case study of one of the largest western cities in the world, using hi-tech 24/7 surveillance on CCTV? Pray tell, Mr. Mayor and law enforcement officials, would you not be better off considering spending the money on other resources than this, real law enforcement instead of police voyeurism, which the (more thoughtful, constitutionally-minded) public will hate? How about considering this cost-benefit analysis, before increasing taxation on the people and violating their right to privacy, their enjoyment of freedom? Pondering minds want to know.

The premise and conclusion of the Mayor's argument (supported by talk radio proponents of excessive police powers) for installing surveillance cameras is then refuted through this effective case study. No doubt the security merchandisers and lobbyists will push others "studies" and "facts" before law enforcement's eyes, but can they be impartial or unbias?

2. The purpose of the Constitution is to regulate and restrain the powers of government (i.e. a good thing!), including police powers, which is why we fought the British in 1776. Since modern republicans (and democrats) seems to forget what freedom really means (more than waving a flag), here is the West Virginia Constitution, which repeats some of the Bill of Rights, yes the same Constitution they swear to "defend and protect", but seldom do:

3-1. Bill of rights.

All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty...

3-6. Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited.

The rights of the citizens to be secure in their houses, persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized.

Where will "freedom" and being "independent" and our "inherent rights" to the "enjoyment" of "liberty" go?

Surveillance cameras do not record criminals, they record EVERYONE, and they "search" EVERYONE constantly, 24/7, without "probable cause", without "warrant". Specifically, these digital surveillance cameras have "facial mapping" technology (as the DMV also installed last year). That means that while they appear non-obtrusive they are taking a DIGITAL "FINGERPRINT" OF YOUR FACE, and this is being "seized", without "probable cause", and recorded for up to 30 or 60 days (as the proposal reported). YOU ARE BEING WATCHED, FILMED AND RECORDED AS A CRIMINAL SUSPECT (cameras have no human judgment) while engaging in lawful behavior (crimes are the exception), AND YOUR PRIVACY IS BEING VIOLATED CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT EARLY AMERICANS FOUGHT AND DIED FOR. It is intrusive. It is not a mark of free society, but that of a Totalitarian government, contrary to the Constitution.

Before West Virginians get used to this by passivity or accident, without thorough thinking, without exerting their Constitutional rights, and continuity of government, they need to consider how it will be expanded. The video below shows a UK Mayor who is nicknamed "Robo Cop" (as could Mayor Jones as well if he continues this policy) and the extent to which the Surveillance Camera is expected to go, which is being pushed under the plea of "necessity", contrary to the evidence. West Virginians do not want to live in the UK or New York City, but wild and wonderful West Virginia, enjoying their liberty and still proclaiming "Mountaineers are always free".