Surveillance is an interesting reflection on photography as a medium. It allows humans to document the action of others, with or without permission. Personally, the idea of security cameras does not bother me, because I am aware of them. They come in handy when someone does something they should not be doing. However, the ways the cameras are used is not under my control, and I do not really know whose eyes are on me, and that I find disturbing. But, when I go to a public place I already know I cannot control the actions of others. The part that really bugged me was the prohibition of recording police officers. I lived in Rochester when the news story broke about the woman who got arrested for recording an officer from her yard. It's disturbing because it made everybody feel helpless. There is a lot of crime in Rochester, and there is always a story about the corruption of the police force. So, the fact that the public in some cases is helpless in even providing concrete evidence of police actions is troubling. I also found it interesting that the law in Chicago had to do with eavesdropping. This pits video against photography by suggesting that the sound makes the difference in how completely truthful the recording is. But, as we have discussed all semester, both photography and video can skew reality in a way that makes us misinterpret facts.
I guess what it comes down to is that I think if citizens are expected to be subjected to surveillance, law enforcement officials should be too. Privacy is already practically nonexistent today, with the number of ways humans are tracked digitally, whether it be online or in cameras. That cannot be changed. whether or not this is ideal, if people did not do anything wrong, then what would they have to be worried about?
Haley Taylor
No comments:
Post a Comment