Comments on: We’re Are All Truman Burbank

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:15:58 +0000

The abuse of technology by law enforcement discussed in this article is heinous indeed. However, these are technologies that are generally known and available; far more insidious and clearly illegal technologies have been developed and are being used by various law enforcement agencies. I have had personal experience with two: small robotic devices that are used to observe activities inside a house, and through-the-wall radar imaging. Given Kyllo, these could never pass constitutional muster, and hence their use is kept under wraps. Indeed, great lengths are taken to avoid disclosure of their use, but it’s easy to see the allure they have to law enforcement. The use of robotic devices inside one’s home raises the stakes an order of magnitude over wiretapping or data mining. It effectively negates any security provided by even unbreakable encryption of data files or transmissions, as the operators can observe the passwords or keys being entered. These technologies have been anticipated in the open literature; for example, see this six year old article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=an-army-of-small-robots
That these technologies exist is demonstrated by a promotional video from BAE Systems. Check out this article – it has a link to the video and some stills of the devices:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-563786/Robobug-goes-war-Troops-use-electronic-insects-spot-enemy-end-year.html
It’s easy to see that very small devices would be virtually impossible to detect, as they can be hidden in exponentially more places as their sizes decrease. And I think most people familiar with the amount of respect given the Fourth Amendment by law enforcement would consider it a joke to assume they won’t use them if they think they can get away with it. Add in self-destruction mechanisms and use of diversions to draw away attention, and the probability of detection can be reduced to a very low order.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:57:41 +0000

When we have people in government who want to ban the sale of Barbie dolls because they "teach girls physical beauty rather than intelligence is what counts" (as if society generally doesn't already teach that), Scott's argument about governmental abuse of power is even more clear. Government — primarily the courts — has been systematically dismantling the Constitution for quite some time now. Add that to the technological capabilities for collecting and collating data on citizens and you start to understand why so many sci-fi visions of the future concern dystopian societies where no one is really free. The problem is, when you look at government's advisers like John Yoo who believe even the Bill of Rights can be disregarded by the President at his own discretion, you realize this future is now.

By: shg

shg — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:07:25 +0000

Fasinating post, and love the Truman Show allusion. No one in government, including Judge Posner, can institutionally admit that it simply cannot be trusted with the technological prowess it posseses. Someone will eventually abuse it, and everyone knows it yet pretends that it would never happen. As you've well pointed out, the potential for corruption is far too great to allow this to happen, and no legal fiction will protect society should the government gain such total control over our personal information. Once this genie is out of the bottle, there can never be privacy again. shgs last blog post..But What About Ruth?

By: Christopher G. Hill

Christopher G. Hill — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:00:48 +0000

Interesting thoughts. I to have wondered about this. In short, we need to be careful about what we put out there in the data stream. While I want some folks knowing about me, what about those that want to use the information in ways that I don't want. A great set of thoughts Rick. Thanks Christopher G. Hills last blog post..An Interview with Amy Derby a/k/a/ The Law Firm Blogger