When "The Truman Show," the poignant tale of one man's quest for freedom from a lifetime of surveillance, was released in 1998 there was a brief but healthy debate in this country - about Jim Carrey's ability to act in such a "serious" role. Sure, libertarians went on about the cautionary nature of the movie and the problems associated with 24-hour supervision, but those worries were dismissed at the sight of triumphant tears streaming down Truman Burbank's face as he bravely battled the artificial hurricane that threatened to drown his blossoming love for a strange collection of torn-out facial features. At most, the lesson of this disturbing parable of unwitting voyeuristic victimization might have taught me - er, a good friend of mine - to stop picking his nose for fear that no matter how sneaky he is, someone, somewhere, could be watching.
Now it is 2007, and we live in a troubling era of reality television, the Web 2.0 and guilty-pleasure celebrity voyeurism. To a new generation, privacy is merely an antiquated ideal that can be violated for a couple of minutes of slapstick comedy and a cheap laugh. Those desperate for their 15 minutes of fame need only a video camera and a YouTube account, and they and their idiot friends can have their face on a million computer monitors in a matter of minutes. Blogs and videoblogs have given instant celebrity status to those whiny or determined enough to spread their image across the farthest, darkest reaches of the Internet.
But hark, ye seekers of celluloid notoriety, your personal Truman Show may be coming to a theater very near you - and much sooner than you think. As you read this, the city of Austin is in the opening weeks of the "trial program" for a system of red light cameras designed to remotely enforce traffic laws at a variety of intersections around our fair town. While traffic accidents are one of America's leading causes of death, and while red light running is such an egregious violation of responsible driving, it is hard to defend arguments against any method that purports to limit instances of both.
Yet defend them we must. For even if one casts aside the dicey political issue of a police system being run by for-profit entities who don't exactly have a vested interest in deterring future infractions or the constitutional issues involved in the accused bearing the burden of proof that they were not the ones driving the car at the time of an infraction, the institution of this new system of public surveillance should give everyone pause to think about how we would like our "public" lives to be treated.
After all, if Victoria Beckham or Jessica Simpson can have every second of their pitiful days filmed and available for public viewing, should we really care if our faces shows up on a couple of pictures or films down in some dark corridor of Austin Police Department headquarters?
Now that merely stepping out of our house puts us squarely in the public domain, and the smoking ban and TABC's undercover "sting" operations have shown that the government considers even private businesses to be "public spaces," is it really a stretch to imagine cameras looking down on every street, park or restaurant? First they will come for the perverts and red light runners, and we will not speak up, for we are not perverts or red light runners. But who will speak up when you get a ticket in the mail for a late-night skinny-dipping session at Lake Travis, or for getting publicly intoxicated after having a few too many drinks in a bar downtown?
Unfortunately, a little public exposure or public intoxication charge is the least worrisome consequence of a society under constant scrutiny. Jews in Nazi Germany and political dissidents in Stalin's Russia weren't criminals either, but concerns about "national security" led to a system of ruthless surveillance and police powers that allowed these "undesirable" minorities to be rounded up with disturbing efficiency. This slippery slope is no bunny hill, it's more like a double black diamond speeding out of control and straight for you.
If we allow cameras to become the law enforcement officers of the 21st century as our political and cultural forebears in Great Britain have, we run the risk of losing our precious privacy and leading very public, very open lives. With the rise of closed-circuit television cameras, GPS tracking systems and Google Earth-strength satellites, your whereabouts and picture-perfect description may only be a few mouse clicks away.
The potential for both personal and governmental abuse of these systems is staggering. Already stories abound of people busted for speeding by their benevolent OnStar caretakers and of people ticketed for Google Earth-spotted zoning violations. Google's new fleet of high-definition panoramic city cameras even captured one woman's lacy unmentionables as she innocently exited her car (thank God Britney Spears wasn't in town that day).
It is all too easy to step aside when picture or video evidence of red light runners, arrest evaders and even sex offenders (a la MSNBC's ratings-whoring "To Catch A Predator") leads to the conviction of such bloodcurdling threats to society, but don't forget that the next person caught on the "wrong" side of the law could very well be you.
Vickers is a Plan II senior.
Be the first to comment on this article!