A Balance Between Liberty & Security – Buz Blog

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

In our Constitutional Republic, we must always beware of possible infringements on our God-given rights. With all of the new technology, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other high tech innovations in the future, our vigilance must remain high. On the opposite side of the equation, people in a free society are susceptible to all kinds of predators. There are those individuals who would attack others physically. There are exploiters who would go after our lives, property, our savings, our homes and other assets. Then there are the opportunists who will commit these crimes when a low risk chance presents itself. Many of the high technology devices and applications are able to protect us from predatory criminals and common thieves, but at what cost?

It is mandatory that we discuss and devise a way to an equilibrium between security and the protection of our Constitutional rights. Input from all sides is required to reach the optimal position between safety and liberty. Law enforcement, judicial experts, civil libertarians, and Constitutionalists need to develop the best procedures to address this question.

The current issue presenting itself is the controversy about “Flock” cameras. Here’s what Flock cameras do: any vehicle that passes a Flock camera has its license plate and information recorded. The information gathered includes the make, model, color, vehicle body damage, or any other distinguishing factors like bumper stickers. Flock, (and presumably other similar companies), create databases that are available to law enforcement and private groups. If the car is stolen, has a warrant associated with its use or a crime, the company notifies law enforcement. It helps provide quick responses to emergencies, evidence of possible causes of vehicle crashes and other incidents.

Most people wouldn’t have a problem with that information being available to policing agencies on vehicles that have been, or are being used in crimes. Questions arise about what happens to information if a vehicle is caught on a Flock camera and it hasn’t been used in a crime? How long is the information kept in the database? Can the private companies that can obtain this information use this data and for what purposes? Can a person who drives his car to and from work everyday, using the same route, having committed no crime, be targeted by law enforcement without any evidence of wrongdoing? Could private companies purchase this information for advertising or other purposes?

What worries civil liberty groups and many lawmakers is that Flock type companies may share their gathered information with individuals or companies that have no legal reason to have it. They are concerned about the length of time tracking can go on. They see potential abuse by law officers. Where humans are involved in any endeavor, there is the possibility of abuse.

Completely banning or over restricting Flock technology is not the answer. Laws can be enacted to address the length of time such surveillance of vehicles can be tracked and stored. Other laws can address those in government and law enforcement who use the data for personal or illegal reasons. Such laws, if enforced, could balance the protection of our liberty and the safety of our lives and property.

In a closely related issue, there seems to be a concerted effort to scare the American public about AI, artificial intelligence. The lessons of history are that whenever, the “experts”, media, and doomsayers call something “an existential threat”, it is, at best, a gross exaggeration and more likely an outright lie. Al Gore’s predictions that the polar cap would melt away and Manhattan and other coastal areas would be underwater by now, never occurred. Gore did make a lot of money on his bogus climate hysteria, though. Our form of government is facing a likely existential threat if communist China keeps advancing their AI technology and we stop our research.