You're probably aware by now of the growing backlash against Flock and its automatic license plate readers, also known as ALPRs. From heated city council meetings in numerous states, to websites dedicated to tracking the weed-like spread of these surveillance tools across the country, to incidents of outright vandalism and destruction, there is a growing awareness of our shrinking ability to do almost anything without being tracked by someone or something.
As someone living in New York City, I'm keenly aware of the difficulty in moving through the world without being tracked. When you leave your house in the city, you likely pass a dozen cameras on storefronts or residential buildings; when you reach the subway, you tap your phone to pay the fare; when you reach your destination, you're on camera in the subway station; when you get to work, you swipe a key card to enter the building that logs the time and who you are; and on it goes...
At least there are ways around some of these tracking points. For example, you can stilly pay cash for your subway ride. But opting-out of a world that is increasingly focused on data-collection schemes is becoming more inconvenient and sometimes unavoidable all together. For example, in some cities and towns in this country, if you drive a car virtually anywhere you are being tracked by Flock and that data is accessible by police. There is no meaningful choice to avoid it either as many American cities have been built around the automobile.
As the West fights its own battles with privacy, enter this concerning report on Moscow that provides a glimpse into what modern cities around the globe might look like in the near future:
From the report:
On the surface, today’s Moscow is a technological wonderland. You can use your face to pay for almost anything, like subway fares, or even to finalize the purchase of an apartment. Robots scurry across sidewalks making 15-minute grocery deliveries, and driverless taxis are set to begin commercial service this year.
It sounds so futuristic, but underneath it is an increasingly centralized surveillance state.
Moscow’s roughly 300,000 CCTV cameras make it one of the most heavily watched cities in the world. It is impossible to avoid a lens while simply walking through the city. The same cameras that whisk subway passengers through turnstiles are also used to monitor and flag people.
These databases help the authorities target political dissent in addition to crime. Biometric feeds can be used to hunt down critics of the government after they hold gatherings. The days when outspoken Russians could flee to remote towns to avoid the authorities, as they did during Stalin’s purges, are largely over.
The same tools that come with the promise of convenience and safety, are the same tools that can be quickly and easily misused to suit political ends. Here in the West, we've seen how surveillance tools in the wrong hands can be used to stalk people or how even seemingly innocuous databases have been co-opted and used for things they were originally intended for.
One last thought
For many, privacy is often a cost-benefit analysis with privacy seen as a cost rather than a benefit that is to be weighed against convenience or safety. I've written about these arguments before, in my column 'A Design of Subtle Coercion' and the Argument for Privacy I explore the problems with this cost-benefit framing. Nevertheless, it is the default way that people think about privacy.
As such, one of the ways that privacy can be eroded is by making the collection of data mandatory, which is a heavy hand, or by making it so inconvenient that most, if not all, people will give in. The latter method appears to be the case in the article on Moscow's surveillance state:
The CCTV network is linked to biometric databases. Submission of biometric data is voluntary in Russia, but it is encouraged in widespread advertisements, and citizens cannot take full advantage of digital services without complying.
It's “voluntary,” but you're missing out on a lot if you don't comply. This sounds not unlike the experience of millions of Americans who cannot drive their car someplace without passing a camera that tracks them, or an application that someone needs to use for their work or personal life for which there is no reasonable alternative.
If we cannot meaningfully choose to opt-out without, in effect, sacrificing our involvement in society, at what point are we bordering on a society that is based on literal and social contracts of adhesion?
