Surveillance, Security, and Civil Liberties

Law Enforcement 1

Law Enforcement:

NAME

PROFESSOR

COURSE

DATE

Law Enforcement: Surveillance, Security, and Civil Liberties

In the 21st century, it seems that the United States is increasingly exposed to dangers which threaten both its unity and its very survival. These threats emanate both from within and without, leaving, it seems no true safe harbor, no real refuge from the uncertainty, instability, and fear of the modern world. Whether the threat is global terrorism, domestic terrorism, or crime in general, law enforcement finds itself increasingly besieged, under pressure, and under attack. The future of law enforcement, then, is predicated upon its capacity to identify and preempt threats. One of the most effective tools law enforcement has at its disposal in achieving this goal are the ubiquitous and ever-evolving technologies which make possible what once seemed like science fiction. Whether these technologies are used for the deployment and use of weaponry or for the surveillance strategies which enable would-be assailants to be detected and detained before they can strike, law enforcement is relying increasingly on state-of-the-art technologies to do the job efficiently and effectively. The challenge, however, is in ensuring that that the use of these technologies neither violates the rule of law nor compromises law enforcement’s mission to protect and to serve.

Surveillance Technologies

In an increasingly volatile environment, where dangers seem to lurk in every corner, where fears of terrorist attacks align with the specter of home-grown threats, it is increasingly incumbent upon law enforcement to root out threats wherever they may hide. Fortunately, surveillance technologies offer affordable, accessible, and effective solutions for law enforcement to monitor potential threats and to intercede before these dangerous persons can act out their malevolent intentions. The challenge, however, is in deploying these technologies appropriately while still adhering to the rule of law. Opponents caution against the violation of privacy rights, particularly for US citizens. The argue that legislation such as the 2001 Patriot Act is fundamentally unconstitutional inasmuch as it extends government surveillance powers far beyond anything the Founding Fathers intended, constituting an infringement upon individual liberties by an intrusive government bent on spying on its citizens, unjustly monitoring what they do, read, write, and say. Opponents of the wide-scale use of these surveillance technologies assert that legislation like the Patriot Act is a reactionary and ultimately futile effort to combat a threat (i.e. terrorism) that is neither imminent nor entirely eradicable. They argue that the harms incurred by this violation to civil liberties far surpasses any benefits the ordinary citizen will glean from this technology. For this reason, many Patriot Act opponents celebrated the reform bill, frequently referred to as the Freedom Act, which was passed in 2015 in an effort to rein in some of the surveillance powers granted to the government under the Patriot Act. Berman (2015) describes the Freedom Act as legislation which “seeks to restrain the nation’s surveillance state….[and] ends the NSA’s bulk collection program first exposed by Edward Snowden two years ago, and requires the government to be more transparent about the data it collects from its citizens” (para. 2). This issue of transparency is one with which law enforcement will increasingly have to grapple as it endeavors to do its job effectively while also adhering to evolving laws and morphing public and legislative attitudes toward surveillance.

Despite the widespread misgivings surrounding surveillance and the protection of individual privacy rights, however, legislators, government officials, and the general public seem to be largely amenable to surveillance practices in the interest of public safety. In a 2015 Gallup poll, it was found that more than 50% of those interviewed described themselves as “greatly concerned” about the threat of terrorist attack, an increase of 12% over the previous year (Newport, 2015). Indeed, the same study asked respondents to identify the greatest threat currently facing the US, and terrorism ranked third, surpassed only by concerns over the economy and healthcare. Another telling finding from this same Gallup Poll is a slight increasing in respondents’ perceived willingness to compromise some measure of civil liberties for the sake of public safety.

Regardless of the seemingly growing acceptance of the use of surveillance technologies in the interest of public safety, however, the number of Americans espousing the regulation and curtailing of government surveillance powers for the protection of civil liberties outnumber by more than 2-to-1 the number of Americans who advocate for unlimited government powers of surveillance for law enforcement purposes (ibid). This means that law enforcement today, and tomorrow, will be forced to walk a fine and delicate line between too much surveillance and too little. In their study of visual surveillance practices in the UK and the Netherlands, Eijkman and Weggemans (2011) argue that such monitoring practices must be balanced with rigorous restraint, a commitment to civil liberties that equals the commitment to public safety. They write, “If there are no proper checks and balances for the public use of visual surveillance, ‘panoptic’ surveillance, where the few—the authorities—view the many—the people—develops” (p. 144). The salient point here is that while these technologies may prove enormously beneficial in the identification and preemption of potential and emerging threats, such capabilities must also be used judiciously. Unfettered and indiscriminate deployment of the technologies increasingly at the disposal of law enforcement risks creating a divide, as the authors describe above, between the haves (the authorities) and the have-nots (the people). A climate of mistrust may easily develop (or be exacerbated) in the face of increasing legal and technological power between law enforcement and the community they police if controls are not put into place to ensure that these technologies are not abused, to ensure that they are deployed in a method that enhances, not decimates, the public’s trust and its approval.

Tactical and Assault Technologies

In the wake of the Dallas tragedy and the killing of the attacker through the use of a robot to deliver a bomb, questions concerning the use of tactical and assault technologies are growing. In an article in the Washington Post, Peterson (2016) writes, “The move represents a potentially unprecedented use of robots to deliberately deliver lethal force in domestic policing, according to experts, raising questions about how local law enforcement officials are deploying the high-tech tools that increasingly fill their arsenals” (para. 2). Peterson’s emphasis on the “domestic” and “local” nature of this event is significant here, as prevailing wisdom and practice often differentiates between law enforcement tactics appropriate to terroristic situations and those used in domestic encounters. The Dallas shootings, however, demonstrate both the accessibility of very high-tech equipment, often derived from military sources (Rahall, 2015), and the increasingly frequent and violent attacks wages in the homeland by US citizens. As the line between terrorism and domestic crime blurs, so too does the line between the appropriate and inappropriate use of tactical and assault technologies by local police forces. If law enforcement in the 21st century will continue to face vexed questions relating to the balancing of technology and civil liberties, it will also have to contend with the ever more complex issue of appropriate versus inappropriate use of force. Rahall (2015) is only one of a host of voices adding to the chorus of dissent and caution in regard to what has been termed the “militarization of the police” (p. 1787). In the future, law enforcement will have at its disposal an unprecedented array of technologies to defend the community and themselves. The question, urgent and unavoidable, is when and to what extent the use of these tools is both legal and ethical.

Financing the Tech

In addition to the complex questions raised by the advent of these technologies in the law enforcement arena comes the very real economic divides, rendering these tools far more accessible to already well-appointed, affluent divisions, while offices in struggling communities continue themselves to struggle. A report from the US Department of Justice found that the number of law enforcement officer positions declined in 2011, the first drop in 25 years (n.d.). The report also found that on average, investments in technology and communication equipment dropped precipitously, as police department budgets were slashed (ibid). In the face of fragile economy and growing demand for law enforcement services, there may be little room in many departments’ budget for the state-of-the-art technologies needed to do the job and to do it well in the 21st century, further perpetuating the class divide wherein safety and security seems to belong, all too often, only to the affluent and those who protect and serve them.

Conclusion

Law enforcement in the 21st century will be increasingly tech-oriented. The ubiquity and sophistication of surveillance technologies will continue to facilitate law enforcement in the identification and neutralization of emerging threats, but the use of these tools must be balanced against the respect for civil liberties, including honoring citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of thought and speech. Likewise, the so-called “militarization” of police speaks to the increasingly powerful tactical and assault technologies available to law enforcement. In a climate in which the lines between terrorism and domestic crime have grown increasingly murky, however, it is difficult to differentiate between the acceptable (and legal) and unacceptable (and illegal) use of force, the deployment of high-tech weapons and tools in ways that enhance, not diminish, the public safety, its trust, and its rights. Nevertheless, as these technologies continue to evolve, so too may the line between those with access and those without. Financially strapped police departments may find serving the poorest and most vulnerable communities may find themselves without desperately needed resources, the resources which their affluent counterparts have in abundance. This risks perpetuating the class divisions in which only the wealthy, and the communities they live in, know what it truly means to feel safe, secure, and protected.

References

Berman, R. (14 May 2015). A long-awaited reform to the Patriot Act. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

Eijkman, Q.A.M. & Weggemans, D. (2011). Visual surveillance and the prevention of terrorism: What about the checks and balances? International Review of Law, Computers, & Technology, 25(3), 143-150.

Newport, F. (2015). Gallup review: U.S. public opinion on terrorism. Gallup. Retrieved from

Peterson, A. (8 July 2016). In an apparent first, Dallas police used a robot to deliver bomb that killed shooting suspect. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

Rahall, K. (2015). The green to blue pipeline: Defense contractors and the police industrial complex. Cardozo Law Review, 36(5), 1785-1835.

U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.). The impact of the economic downturn on American police agencies. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Retrieved from