These ‘eavesdropping laws’ seem absurd now because they are
outdated, and seemed unbalanced in comparison with the overbearing surveillance
put on the public by the general authority of any kind (police, government or
corporation). I’m all for challenging this surveillance in all aspects of life, as we have to adjust
to the constant possibility of being watched and our actions being analyzed, though this law
with such a silly name doesn’t seem like the right option. It acts like a trap, a
protection of this already overbearing authority from the power of one person
able to document them. It is
obvious by the reports of the officers what can be perceived by the naked eye
can be interpreted and fudged to be understood in any way, and one persons
saying their perceived truth can easily be brushed aside if a larger group with
more power says something different. However it’s not the case with a
recording. How is it possible to
have two consenting individuals when it comes to daily surveillance, in every
public place, or is in now assumed that it is simple expected wherever we go.
In Boston, a city in a state where there is eavesdropping laws, hundreds of people documented the area of the marathon before and after the
bombing. On their own people have collected these images from the public to speculate on the
event, following some 'suspects' through the images, circling and noting
what they carry, who they give it to, what they’re wearing. The public using the public images to
investigate and share them again with the public, the information has no
validity at the moment, but regardless on whether or not the people in the
images have anything to do with the bombing, how could they really use the
eavesdropping law? Since the photographs come from hundreds of individuals on the day,
the public would become protected by it’s own strength in size.
No comments:
Post a Comment