Saturday, May 1st, a fellow CHS graduate and I were walking uptown from New York Penn Station, enjoying the sudden onset of nice weather. Avoiding walking through Times Square, a practice that most people without cameras draped over their neck or shirts that say “I Heart NY” partake in, I overheard someone mention both “Times Square” and “bomb” in the same sentence. I pulled up the AP story on my Blackberry and read about what was currently going on only blocks from where we were standing. Being a student of emergency management, I looked for a description of what was found to figure out whether we needed to head for the hills. To my relief, the explosive device seemed not to be an immediate threat anymore.
However, after reading a more detailed account of the incident later, my fear returned as I realized how many simple things are not in place to prevent such threats from occurring, and how separating the ‘technology’ from the ‘platform’ is a distinction that must be made to ensure the advancement of useful public safety technologies that protect both our persons and our privacy rights.
Let’s not forget or ignore that the fuse for the bomb was successfully ignited, but because of a malfunction the actual explosives did not fully detonate, same as last December. And same as December, people are not approaching this incident as if it had happened. Imagine if a few blocks of unsuspecting people in Times Square had been incinerated in the blast from a van with stolen license plates filled with explosives and driven right into Times Square. Manhattan would be on lockdown and Americans’ conception of safety would be shaken to its very core. Let’s count our blessings that in a five month period two attempts to inflict massive causalities in this country have failed.
Instead of waiting for someone to commit such an act successfully, let’s imagine that it did happen. That level of frustration, anger and corresponding desire for new solutions needs to exist now. Instead of allowing our country to continue flawed and slow-moving technological advancement in the field of public safety, this event should serve as a galvanizing factor for us to move forward with unique and innovative technologies that provide creative and effective public safety solutions.
My worry is that because we are not taking appropriate actions now, when a successful attack does happen, out of fear, we will be more willing to accept technologies and policies that do violate our civil rights. People, including Congress, were so thrown off balance by the attacks of September 11th that they were willing to accept a ‘solution’ (See: USA Patriot Act) that gave far more power to the government than necessary because it was easy and quick and helped calm a nervous public. In the study of emergency management, the period of time when a public will accept these types of draconian measures (“the recovery period”) is actually part of the curriculum.
Even right now, we can take two current technologies: object-recognition software and police cameras that run license plates against vehicle databases. Combining these, we can create a system that would have, within seconds of the vehicle used Saturday night passing by a camera, detected that it had stolen license plates and flagged it for an in-person follow up. And as long as no data is stored and personally identifiable information cannot be accessed, such a protected automated system does not present any privacy concerns.
When breaking down the arguments made against new technology, they have much more to do with the storage of personal information for indefinite periods than the actual technology, for example of a video camera, a device which millions of people voluntarily use daily to share private information with untold masses online. This more nuanced look at the issues makes a clear distinction between the ‘technology’ and ‘platforms.’ Technology is the capability to run a full-body image scan. The platform is how technologies are deployed, for example a full-body scanner used on people indiscriminately. Technologies themselves tend to be neutral until they are used a certain way.
It is absolutely critical to seriously consider and discuss the implications of new technologies as they are developed. Perhaps there are protections that can be put in place to use a new technology effectively. Perhaps there are not. Either way, that debate needs to happen, needs to be robust and needs to be publicly acknowledged and understood. By thinking more outside the box than people have thus far and being more transparent and inclusive with our decisions, we can both protect our privacy and improve our nation’s public safety.
However, after reading a more detailed account of the incident later, my fear returned as I realized how many simple things are not in place to prevent such threats from occurring, and how separating the ‘technology’ from the ‘platform’ is a distinction that must be made to ensure the advancement of useful public safety technologies that protect both our persons and our privacy rights.
Let’s not forget or ignore that the fuse for the bomb was successfully ignited, but because of a malfunction the actual explosives did not fully detonate, same as last December. And same as December, people are not approaching this incident as if it had happened. Imagine if a few blocks of unsuspecting people in Times Square had been incinerated in the blast from a van with stolen license plates filled with explosives and driven right into Times Square. Manhattan would be on lockdown and Americans’ conception of safety would be shaken to its very core. Let’s count our blessings that in a five month period two attempts to inflict massive causalities in this country have failed.
Instead of waiting for someone to commit such an act successfully, let’s imagine that it did happen. That level of frustration, anger and corresponding desire for new solutions needs to exist now. Instead of allowing our country to continue flawed and slow-moving technological advancement in the field of public safety, this event should serve as a galvanizing factor for us to move forward with unique and innovative technologies that provide creative and effective public safety solutions.
My worry is that because we are not taking appropriate actions now, when a successful attack does happen, out of fear, we will be more willing to accept technologies and policies that do violate our civil rights. People, including Congress, were so thrown off balance by the attacks of September 11th that they were willing to accept a ‘solution’ (See: USA Patriot Act) that gave far more power to the government than necessary because it was easy and quick and helped calm a nervous public. In the study of emergency management, the period of time when a public will accept these types of draconian measures (“the recovery period”) is actually part of the curriculum.
Even right now, we can take two current technologies: object-recognition software and police cameras that run license plates against vehicle databases. Combining these, we can create a system that would have, within seconds of the vehicle used Saturday night passing by a camera, detected that it had stolen license plates and flagged it for an in-person follow up. And as long as no data is stored and personally identifiable information cannot be accessed, such a protected automated system does not present any privacy concerns.
When breaking down the arguments made against new technology, they have much more to do with the storage of personal information for indefinite periods than the actual technology, for example of a video camera, a device which millions of people voluntarily use daily to share private information with untold masses online. This more nuanced look at the issues makes a clear distinction between the ‘technology’ and ‘platforms.’ Technology is the capability to run a full-body image scan. The platform is how technologies are deployed, for example a full-body scanner used on people indiscriminately. Technologies themselves tend to be neutral until they are used a certain way.
It is absolutely critical to seriously consider and discuss the implications of new technologies as they are developed. Perhaps there are protections that can be put in place to use a new technology effectively. Perhaps there are not. Either way, that debate needs to happen, needs to be robust and needs to be publicly acknowledged and understood. By thinking more outside the box than people have thus far and being more transparent and inclusive with our decisions, we can both protect our privacy and improve our nation’s public safety.
