No Title (Someone Might Read This)

Surveillance is a beast of many colors. Some of those colors are excellent and reasonable; others aren’t so pretty and hospitable. The key is finding the line and NEVER stepping over it.

Take two separate instances in which identical methods of surveillance can be used in both positive and negative ways. A closed circuit camera is pointed at a public area in which there is a large amount of vandalism. That camera films the perpetrators and the police make an arrest that results in conviction. Few people would argue that this use of surveillance was inappropriate. Okay, for the second instance let’s say that the same camera was mounted in a public place, but was pointed in a way that allowed the user to peer into a person’s bathroom window as well as see potential vandalism. All of a sudden that surveillance camera seems like a less reasonable idea.

The same idea can be applied online, at least to my way of thinking. If the surveillance (of any kind) is directed solely towards an entirely public sphere, I think it’s perfectly acceptable and completely wise and reasonable. However, if that surveillance suddenly encroaches onto ‘private’ areas of the Internet (such as personal e-mail, private or password protected sites, etc.) I no longer think it is reasonable. So where’s the line?

Overall I would love it if I could know who the other person REALLY was. I do not believe that anyone inherently has the right to act like or impersonate someone who they are not. People should represent themselves as they are, not as people they are not. I think that surveillance in the public spheres of the Internet should be encouraged, not treated as inherently evil.

Treat the public Internet just like you would Times Square, if you don’t want someone to see it, don’t do/post it!