The Problem with Technology
Mar. 5th, 2009 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
howeverbriefI wasn't lying when I said I had more. Haha.
Discuss why or why not allow the govt. to use any and all high tech means to discovery and eliminate crime BEFORE it happens.
Technology is a beautiful thing. Every day, I hear about some new advance in computers or thousands of galaxies being discovered by the new high powered telescope or the new high powered self-cleaning litter box. These advances help us in a myriad of ways, from saving us time, money, frustration, energy, and other useful things as well as making us better able to see and measure the world around us. When used correctly, technology can aid us in discovering crime and heading it off before it even occurs.
But just as we have high powered self-cleaning litter boxes, it doesn't mean technology is always used the way it should be. While we may save in many ways, we also do not always know the consequences of the new technology until it has been in use for a while. Did the advent of the machine gun help soldiers in the military make their marks more quickly? Of course. Does this mean every policeman, citizen, and criminal on the street should have access to them? I would say no.
The Constitution, via the Fourth Amendment, bars the government from unreasonable searches and seizures on its citizens. This Amendment is in force because the British government abused its power in searching and seizing from citizens of the American colonies. Because the government abused this power, our country's forefathers saw fit to include this provision against unreasonable searches and seizures when forming the law of the land. The language they used for this provision was purposefully vague in order to allow the advances that technology would afford in the coming years, and this vagueness has served us well. If we didn't allow for technology, we wouldn't be able to chase down criminals in cars, fly above cities with helicopters, catch speeders with radar guns, or collect DNA from crime scenes. Technology has helped us solve crimes we would have thought unsolvable and helped us prevent crime before it even occurs. With these tools at our fingertips, why wouldn't we want to use every resource we have in order to wipe out crime?
Unfortunately, technology can be the Sword of Damocles. As much as it can help us detect crime and catch criminals, it can also violate our rights to privacy. That high powered telescope might let us look further into the stars, but it can also reach between the curtains we use to shade ourselves from the outside world. As much as the Fourth Amendment allows for technology's advantages, it also goes back to protecting the people from a government that will often stop at nothing to make sure that crime is curbed.
Why do we need to be protected from the government, though? Many make the argument that if you have nothing to hide, it doesn't matter if police search you. Really, if you're not doing anything wrong, it doesn't matter if your house or person is searched by authorities. This searching, however, can make us all into criminals, whether we have done anything wrong or not.
I was especially struck by the thermal detector example in our text. Here, we have a machine that can detect heat coming off a person's house. Heat doesn't seem like a very private thing, but an excess amount of it can help the police detect when someone's growing marijuana or perhaps manufacturing amphetamines. If the police can use a special advance in technology to detect such heat producing crimes, they might be able to prevent that kind of crime from occurring. With a simple device, police can easily scan your house without necessarily knowing what other activities you're doing. This seems like a win-win, but the judges in this case saw it differently. While preventing crime is very important, the privacy of the people is important too. Sure, the men in this case were growing illegal substances, but were they aware that the police had a device that could detect heat? Did the men set out to broadcast their illegal activity? No, in fact, they did quite the opposite. They highly sheltered their activity in the hopes of getting away with their crime. The court said that the device, while helpful, detected something beyond what was in plain sight. Since the device went beyond what a normal person could have seen, the evidence was not admissible.
This is a tough ruling to uphold, but it also makes sense. Say every technology that was produced was available for the police to use. What if the police scanned a house looking for heat produced by growing marijuana and instead detected the excess heat coming off an experimental high powered computer? If we give police this power to search carte blanch, they are able to search for a crime instead of preventing one. The problem comes in if the person inside wasn't growing drugs or doing illegal activities but was doing something he wanted to keep quiet instead. That person would just be collateral damage. Oh, sorry. We had to search your house in case you were committing a crime, but since you aren't, it's OK. If it catches criminals, the use of technology seems fine, but if it invites police with even the smallest doubts of crime in wherever they wish to go, then it's an invasion of privacy.
Don't take this as me advocating the ban of new technology, though. While I am definitely in favor of protecting privacy, I also understand that there are plenty of technological advances that will allow police to better protect us citizens without violating our privacy. This is why I believe the court system must be allowed to evaluate each advancement as it is developed in order to determine which do not violate our constitutional rights.
EDIT: Oh, and the phrasing of the question confused me too. Don't worry!
Discuss why or why not allow the govt. to use any and all high tech means to discovery and eliminate crime BEFORE it happens.
Technology is a beautiful thing. Every day, I hear about some new advance in computers or thousands of galaxies being discovered by the new high powered telescope or the new high powered self-cleaning litter box. These advances help us in a myriad of ways, from saving us time, money, frustration, energy, and other useful things as well as making us better able to see and measure the world around us. When used correctly, technology can aid us in discovering crime and heading it off before it even occurs.
But just as we have high powered self-cleaning litter boxes, it doesn't mean technology is always used the way it should be. While we may save in many ways, we also do not always know the consequences of the new technology until it has been in use for a while. Did the advent of the machine gun help soldiers in the military make their marks more quickly? Of course. Does this mean every policeman, citizen, and criminal on the street should have access to them? I would say no.
The Constitution, via the Fourth Amendment, bars the government from unreasonable searches and seizures on its citizens. This Amendment is in force because the British government abused its power in searching and seizing from citizens of the American colonies. Because the government abused this power, our country's forefathers saw fit to include this provision against unreasonable searches and seizures when forming the law of the land. The language they used for this provision was purposefully vague in order to allow the advances that technology would afford in the coming years, and this vagueness has served us well. If we didn't allow for technology, we wouldn't be able to chase down criminals in cars, fly above cities with helicopters, catch speeders with radar guns, or collect DNA from crime scenes. Technology has helped us solve crimes we would have thought unsolvable and helped us prevent crime before it even occurs. With these tools at our fingertips, why wouldn't we want to use every resource we have in order to wipe out crime?
Unfortunately, technology can be the Sword of Damocles. As much as it can help us detect crime and catch criminals, it can also violate our rights to privacy. That high powered telescope might let us look further into the stars, but it can also reach between the curtains we use to shade ourselves from the outside world. As much as the Fourth Amendment allows for technology's advantages, it also goes back to protecting the people from a government that will often stop at nothing to make sure that crime is curbed.
Why do we need to be protected from the government, though? Many make the argument that if you have nothing to hide, it doesn't matter if police search you. Really, if you're not doing anything wrong, it doesn't matter if your house or person is searched by authorities. This searching, however, can make us all into criminals, whether we have done anything wrong or not.
I was especially struck by the thermal detector example in our text. Here, we have a machine that can detect heat coming off a person's house. Heat doesn't seem like a very private thing, but an excess amount of it can help the police detect when someone's growing marijuana or perhaps manufacturing amphetamines. If the police can use a special advance in technology to detect such heat producing crimes, they might be able to prevent that kind of crime from occurring. With a simple device, police can easily scan your house without necessarily knowing what other activities you're doing. This seems like a win-win, but the judges in this case saw it differently. While preventing crime is very important, the privacy of the people is important too. Sure, the men in this case were growing illegal substances, but were they aware that the police had a device that could detect heat? Did the men set out to broadcast their illegal activity? No, in fact, they did quite the opposite. They highly sheltered their activity in the hopes of getting away with their crime. The court said that the device, while helpful, detected something beyond what was in plain sight. Since the device went beyond what a normal person could have seen, the evidence was not admissible.
This is a tough ruling to uphold, but it also makes sense. Say every technology that was produced was available for the police to use. What if the police scanned a house looking for heat produced by growing marijuana and instead detected the excess heat coming off an experimental high powered computer? If we give police this power to search carte blanch, they are able to search for a crime instead of preventing one. The problem comes in if the person inside wasn't growing drugs or doing illegal activities but was doing something he wanted to keep quiet instead. That person would just be collateral damage. Oh, sorry. We had to search your house in case you were committing a crime, but since you aren't, it's OK. If it catches criminals, the use of technology seems fine, but if it invites police with even the smallest doubts of crime in wherever they wish to go, then it's an invasion of privacy.
Don't take this as me advocating the ban of new technology, though. While I am definitely in favor of protecting privacy, I also understand that there are plenty of technological advances that will allow police to better protect us citizens without violating our privacy. This is why I believe the court system must be allowed to evaluate each advancement as it is developed in order to determine which do not violate our constitutional rights.
EDIT: Oh, and the phrasing of the question confused me too. Don't worry!
