Is Big Brother Watching You? Just Maybe.

~OFF Magazine sent Richard Cason to find out about the push some are advocating toward using surveillance cameras in Cape. Here's what he came back with. Keep in mind, this is Cason, in all his gonzo glory, not your straight, writer-as-a-robot-observer journalism. Enjoy.

---

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." From "1984"

By George Orwell

---

Sikeston's Mayor, Mike Marshall, demonstrated how Sikeston's surveillance cameras work from the control room. The city has eight cameras at the schools, five at the housing authority and seven around the city. (Diane Wilson)

It really was only a question of when. Writers tried to warn us, artists tried to show us and still it sneaked right past us and the old belt tightened one more notch. I thought I first noticed it at the intersection of Sprigg and Washington sometime in the spring of '03. While driving north on Sprigg after a long day of work in Illinois I stopped at the intersection mentioned above. As I waited for the signal to turn green I spotted something perched on top of the stoplight pole. If I had to guess I would say that this thing was ... "aimed" directly at me and the interior of my car.

"You dogs," I thought to myself.

When the light did turn green naturally I flipped-off all of the stoplight devices, fully expecting a ticket or summons in the mail a few days later. I never received anything.

Sikeston's surveillance cameras are throughout the city. (Diane Wilson)

If they are cameras then the guy watching the feed doesn't give a rat's ass about the images being recorded, which is fine with me. On any given day I alone commit a myriad of traffic offenses: Speeding, using a vehicle with non-working turn signals, taking shortcuts through parking lots, running through signals that are "this" close from turning yellow to red; often these minor infractions occur during the same trip. Factor in even crazier drivers, a marked increase in cell phone use by the police and an accident that wasn't my fault in December 2006 and you would think that they would have plenty of crime to bust. Maybe a camera is only as good as the man looking at the tape.

Cut to four years later and such devices can be found at five more intersections, by my count. This conjures essentially two questions: What images, if any, are being captured and what are they being used for?

In preparing for this piece it was brought to my attention that the People of Sikeston are already under that city's ever-present and fatherly eye. They love it ... or, at least, that's what they're told they better say. Sikeston Mayor Mike Marshall explained to the Southeast Missourian on May 4, 2007 that he understands people are wary of being watched.

"People talk about Big Brother watching, but I hope they know there's reasons for it. These cameras continue to make a difference, and I feel like we're on the cutting edge here."

Well, that's a vague, if not, chilling answer. "Reasons for it", "making a difference", "on the cutting edge"? Is that the best you can come up with, Mr. Mayor? Cutting edge of what, exactly; a crime-free Sikeston, U.S.A.? Whatever difference is being made crime-wise will not matter once the technology starts being abused.

From the May 4, 2007 issue of the Southeast Missourian: The cameras, which are operated by a joystick from the control room in the Sikeston Department of Public Safety, are known as PTZ (pan, tilt and zoom). This means they can be shifted around 360 degrees and tilted up or down from inside a tinted dome. The clarity (of the images) is strong enough to pick out facial features from three blocks away or a license plate number from about a block and a half.

Say, I'm feeling safer already.

That is just one more reason why I don't live in Sikeston and never go there; they can do what they want. For the time being, I'm a Cape Girardian and I simply don't want to see my city turn into some nightmare police state -- it's that simple.

Due to increasing vandalism, downtown Cape merchants are looking for ways to cut it -- extra patrols, more surveillance, a combination of both -- they're desperate and at this point they're willing to go for anything. So fear not, brave American -- you can still help Johnny Law in his quest for liberty. All you have to do is continue breaking windows and beer bottles all over Main, Water and Spanish streets and you too will be put under our own fair city's electronic and indifferent eye. Your drunken face will be seen on a 42-inch plasma monitor down at HQ and your license number will be read meaning they've just found your address so you might want to pick up your place a little; you'll be having company.

On June 15 I went to the Cape Girardeau Police Headquarters to speak to the Chief himself, Carl Kinnison. I arrived and asked for Corporal Jason Selzer who would take me to chat with Cape Girardeau's top cop. The Corporal and I killed a few minutes with a tour of the top floor where the detective division is, the jail and the interrogation room which flashed me back to my award-winning days of radio; it looked just like a studio with the thick shag on the walls, the reel-to-reel tape deck, the hard-nosed guy on the other side of the glass wanting a confession out of me ...

Chief Kinnison was wrapping-up another meeting as Cpl. Selzer and I waited in the Chief's outer office. Once his meeting was over Chief Kinnison invited me into his office as Cpl. Selzer went about his other tasks. The Chief and I sat a large conference table where he was seated at the end near his desk; I sat on the west side. Of course, since this is a story about surveillance I felt it would only serve the piece better if I recorded everything from the moment I left my apartment.

RICHARD CASON: So, how are you?

CHIEF KINNISON: I'm good. How are you?

RC: Oh, I slept in like I shouldn't have.

CK: (Laughs)

RC: Corporal Selzer told me that you were media-savvy.

CK: Well, don't (laughing again) ... don't believe everything you hear.

RC: OK. Well, the issue of surveillance has come up. Maybe you would like to give your thoughts and opinions on where exactly you stand on it.

CK: Overall, and you have to remember, you're talking to someone involved in law enforcement ... who would love to be able to see everything all the time as far as crimes go. The (Southeast) Missourian had an article this morning about the girl abducted in Kansas and how video surveillance played a significant role in that. There's no question that video surveillance can be an outstanding asset in any crime investigation. I also understand the privacy issues, as well. So, where the balance is there ... I'm not sure. I don't think it's appropriate, you know, honing in on people's homes and their porches and their backyards and so forth. I think that's stretching it a little bit too far. So, it's a balance. We're not looking at purchasing a video surveillance system for the city at all.

RC: I guess for a lot of people, a business owner watching his own property is one thing and being "watched" by the City or the police is something else. Um, the things that are on top of stoplights; one would naturally assume that they're any old surveillance camera. So, what are they?

CK: They're traffic sensors. They used to bury traffic sensors in the ground and then anytime they did construction they always had to redo all that.

RC: If it (surveillance) were to become feasible, financially, and I mean everywhere in America, do you see the possibility of such things in 70, 80 or 100 years down the road, being abused by those who would do the watching?

CK: I don't think that would be tolerable or acceptable.

RC: So where does it end?

CK: I don't know. The Council, who represents the citizens ... they would have to give the final OK on the purchase of these camera systems and they're going to want to know "what are you watching" and so forth. There's always that citizen oversight in my world. I don't really get by with doing anything without the citizens ultimately approving it. As a result, I don't really see that kind of abuse (occurring). Citizens' attitudes might change. You may decide to live in a community where you want surveillance everywhere and if the Council so chooses and the citizens are OK with that, then fine.

RC: Would you live in a society like that?

CK: I don't have a problem with it. We're videotaped in this building and have been for almost 30 years now. Everything we do is videotaped in the outside and the inside. Telephone conversations are audio taped. That doesn't bother me at all.

RC: Do you feel that it changes, on a subconscious level, how you behave? Your awareness of being recorded; does it guide how you conduct yourself or would you conduct yourself the same without it?

CK: It doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever. I would think most of the people here would say the same thing but I don't know.

RC: As humans we have fundamental choices to make: Are we going to be good or bad? Are we going to do "this" or "that", etc.? Do you think that under a "watched" society the technology would automatically make these choices for us?

CK: Part of surveillance is, hopefully, deterrence. So if somebody is walking down Main Street and they see a woman with a purse and they're trying to make that call, "Do I want that purse or not", hopefully, that camera would keep that woman from being hurt. I mean, that's the idea. If it doesn't do that it assists in the apprehension of that person. But that's the whole purpose is to help a person choose to do good as opposed to evil.

RC: Do you think that over a couple of generations it could become so inborn that people just don't decide anything except ... you know, good?

CK: Would that be bad? I mean, would it be bad if people chose to be good?

RC: That's the thing -- are they choosing or is it automatic? I can understand where you're coming from but I believe that it takes that choice away from people and you end up with a "Clockwork Orange" scenario where we don't get to make that choice. What if that choice is bred out of us? It's kind of a bland society at that point, isn't it?

CK: (Pause) My goal is nothing more than a safer community. That's it. I really haven't thought onto that level but if it keeps somebody from being raped or murdered then that is a positive thing, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know, that's pretty deep stuff.

RC: Well, it was a pleasure talking to you.

CK: You too. I'll show you out ... although you could just follow the cameras. (Laughs)

Chief Kinnison was never informed by me that our conversation was being recorded so if you're reading this, Chief, I do apologize. I didn't know if it would affect his answers or not and God knows I'm horrible at taking written notes. I do believe, though, that the Chief's heart is in the right place. I believe him when he says that invading someone's privacy at home with surveillance is going too far. I believe him when he says that surveillance is an asset in fighting crime. But just because technology exists, i.e. surveillance, pet recovery microchips and cloning, this does not necessarily mean that these things should be used.

Anyone who does not, cannot or will not see the earth-shattering danger before their own damnable eyes needs to consider this: If implemented, over time, surveillance will be abused in the name of public safety. As the song says, "I never saw a miracle of science that didn't go from a blessing to a curse". By the way, that's from Sting's "Ten Summoner's Tales" album if anyone is interested.

In such a society you will become an automatic suspect just for being somewhere and so, naturally, everyone will be on their best behavior never even considering rocking the boat. Crime will go down drastically, downtown and everywhere else will be safe and pretty and we all live happily ever after; and at what cost? The very thing that separates us from all living beings on this planet -- your free will. But, hey -- things will be orderly, running smoothly with no dissent or disagreement, a society that is without feeling, sterile, efficient and obedient.

Are you honestly going to tell me that that's anyway to live?

Hell, it's barely existing.