« Can Tech Catch Scheming Politicians? | Home | Lunch with Lessig »
May 30, 2002
Should Police Have Cameras on Every Corner?
Today, the libertarian Cato Institute issued a statement saying that greater FBI surveillance powers do not pose a threat to society. While it’s true that camera surveillance in public places does not pose privacy problems, it does bring up the larger issue of the expansion of government power. If there were cameras on every street and the government could use them to follow political enemies around (as they have a history of doing), that would be a very serious problem indeed. It is strange to see Cato being so nonchalant about such a dangerous movement.
No. It is, instead, typical of Cato. They are not reliably libertarian: instead they oppose government interference in areas traditionally supported by conservatives--business, religion, etc.
The real danger from surveillance in this country does not come from "Big Brother." It will come from little brothers--commerce uniting to share data to the individual's loss.
Hmmm.... What do you mean by reliably libertarian? In what areas -- besides this example -- is Cato non-libertarian?
Traditional Libertarians are suspcious of government regulation in almost every case--because they believe it be potentially unlimited and tryranical in tendency.
But Cato is these days more often pro-market, than libertarian per se. They have been hesitant to condemn more often than not on the subject of civil liberties under Ashcroft--who has done more to roll back civil liberties than any other political figure in my lifetime.
They did, in fairness, however, express some mild doubts about the Patriot Act--which makes them the exception in the US. Also, they have been more traditionally libertarian than many other theoretically conservative organizations.
Jason, you intermingle "libertarian" with "conservative" and accuse one camp of inconsistency when they aren't acting like the other. There are many non-conservative libertarians and vice-versa.
On another note, you are quick to point out how "conservatives" are only anti-government when it comes to business but pro-government when it comes to security. I challenge this assumption--Bill Safire is a conservative and pro-civil liberties--and using Ashcroft, the Attorney General of the US and the man in charge of federal law enforcement, as your straw man conservative is unhelpful. Of course he wants to expand his powers--as any attorney general would in these circumstances--and even if you are right that he is infringing on civil liberties, you simply can't suggest that he represents the conservative view--it represents the attorney general's view, who happens to be a conservative. Those are not the same thing.
Finally, to the extent there is an inconsistency on the right, do you find this more troubling than those liberals who want to expand the role for government in the minutiae of everyday life but reduce it when it comes to national security?
Thank you. I think it is a useful distinction to make: that the atorney general is expaninding the powers and that he is also a conservative. It does not necessarily mean that all conservatives are indifferent to civil liberties.
However, while recognizing that these are unusual times--I am bemused that a "conservative" administration has, so far, been fairly destructive of civil liberties.
As to your question: I find liberal inconsistency is fairly degrading to the political process, too.