Global security issues have forced many countries all over the world to focus into their security plans and programs in order to continue keeping their people safe. Along with the traditional methods already being implemented, technology has offered more opportunities to further improve the system. However, a closer look at how people in authority are doing things now pushes one to take a step back and rethink what these measures are for. This same sentiment is the crust of Wendy Kaminer’s article titled ”Trading Liberty for Illusions,” published on Chapter 4, pages 397-399, of the book Writing in the Disciplines 7th Edition in 2012. In the said article, Kaminer points out how Americans give up their individual rights all for the illusion of safety when in reality. Another article found in the same book was written by The Economist titled “If Looks Could Kill” on pages 400-403. Similar to Kaminer’s article, “If Looks Could Kill” critically looks into the flaws of surveillance footage and profiling that are now the common practice in the U.S. Both articles discussed in great detail the ever-changing security measures being implemented in America and how instead of feeling safe, people react in a variety of manner. In airports, for instance, where a heightened method of searhing and checking passengers have been implemented, people are either pissed or bored about the seeming endless routines. These reactions from citizens illustrate the fact that instead of feeling safe, people seem to have simply accepted the methods, albeit reluctantly and with great amount of annoyance, thinking that it would be their own safety when in reality, it was more of an invasion of privacy than for security purposes.
Wendy Kaminer has written several articles about current and significant issues in the society. Her ”Trading Liberty for Illusions” article garnered a lot of interest for its spot on details about the security procedures that the government have been implementing. According to her, Americans submit to the ‘protective’ hands of the government in exchange for their ‘safety’ and ‘well-being.’ However, the other reality behind what appears to be an act of submission and observance of the procedures is that people were not informed about it (Kaminer, 2010).
The elaborate security practices being implemented these days are largely due to the paranoia caused by unfortunate events that rocked the country, notably the 9/11 bombing, which was scary, traumatising, and altogether violent, as well as all other consistent acts of indiscriminate bombing and attacks in several countries around the world. However, the fear caused by these events, if not put into proper perspective, pushes people to be paranoid. Such was shown in the course of history of the country, where imigrants, members of suspected ethnic groups, and other sympathizers of ideas that the government does not agree with ended up being persecuted (Kaminer, 2012). In such cases, liberty was completely trampled, but security was not enhanced. In Tampa, Florida, the publicized facial recognition system being used has yet to identify even one criminal in the police database. However, the use of facial recognition in identifying criminals puts citizens in vulnerable situations as they are not aware that by simply going out to run some errands or something, their pictures may have been taken and filed in the database without them even knowing it. Photographic database, to begin with is unfair, as it stereotypes people and endangers someone who may bear resemblance to an identified criminal. One innocent citizen may set off facial recognition alarm and get arrested in a public place such as a grocery store and be subjected to the humiliation and public judgment despite being genuinely innocent. Clearly, this is a violation of individual rights as everything is done without the consent of the individual. The law was originally reactive instead of proactive, following the maxim ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Although it is only for the best interest of the people that the law has become proactive, the negative consequences are felt by the people themselves. There is also the issue of police officers using the system in stalking unsuspecting women and intimidating others (Kaminer 2012). All these factors, apart from the amount being spent on these technology, should be taken into consideration and call for a review of these security procedures being implemented.
The article “If Looks Could Kill” by The Economist, on the other hand, discusses similar points but focuses on the flaws of surveillance footage and profiling. Latest development in technology has enabled surveillance footage to capture and store facial images and analyze them for certain features and expressions that could be considered ‘suspicious’ (The Economist 2012). While the government is monitoring criminals, an innocent citizen who may exhibit somewhat similar activities may end being on the watchlist and eventualy get picked-up. However, not all people who go to subway stations on a daily basis mean that the person is a terrorist, nor does a person who often goes to stairwells intend to blow up the building. Correlation does not equate causation, which means that simply because there is a pattern, the intention is automatically bad. This system also does not work well with trained criminals who are mostly trained to be passive and unemotional. Like the old-fashioned lie detector machine that was commonly used in the past and still is by some in the present, all it takes is a mastery of emotion control in order to pass the test. While criminals manage to get away from it scot-free, innocent people don’t. The article pointed out that habit and facial expressions vary from culture to culture (The Economist 2012). This means that someone who’s uncomfortable being near police officers or security personnel may react differently and appear guilty even if it was for another reason altogether. Similarly, a refugee from an oppressive country is also guarantee to act differently when placed in a high security zone. These innocent people become victimized falsely because of these tools that even though they may be proven not guilty in the end, the emotional trauma and public perception about them are irreversible. In the end, the very people that the system was supposed to protect end up being the victims. This completely defeats the purpose of securtiy methods and procedures.
While the goal of the different security measures that people are observing nowadays are for their own protection and security, it is critical for everyone to have an awareness and proper understanding of what they really do and if they are serving their purpose. Fear can push one to be irrational, and the elaborate security scheme that is being implemented right now seem to be a manifestation of this. Perhaps it is good that people feel secure having them around, but the real danger of it comes when terror strikes. Instead of saving people, they are placed at a great disadvantage that threatens their safety and peace of mind. This is a reality despite the absence of violence and real danger. However, when it fails to perform its duty the way it’s supposed to, its existence does not bear any significance at all. As such, a review of these security systems becomes necessary, such that it should be made sure that they don’t harm the citizens that they are supposed to protect. In addition, the government should also guarantee that there will be no chances for people in authority to abuse their power and victimize people using the same tools. The citizens are the ones who are placed at a great disadvantage if the government fails to address these issues. Thus, whether there is a real threat or not, citizens are already victims, with their liberty being taken and their sense of security turning up to be an illusion.
References
Kaminer, W. (2012). “Trading liberty for illusions.” Writing in the Disciplines 7th Edition. Ed.
Kennedy, M.L. and Kennedy, W.J. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
The Economist (2012). “If looks could kill.” Writing in the Disciplines 7th Edition. Ed. Kennedy,
M.L. and Kennedy, W.J. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
