If 100,000 people can walk or drive down a public street, and see something with their eyes, each day, is it really a security matter? Can it really be a privacy matter? Or is this a pretext to hide evidence of corruption or other embarrassment?
Criminalizing Observation
In Chicago not so long ago, there was some upset when it was believed that the police were attempting to write laws to protect them from being filmed while they were working. (Click here.)
Many of us are surprised when we find such government efforts in the U.S. But of course, it is happening internationally quite frequently.
Working internationally, I often find cab drivers advising against taking photos of the most benign subjects for fear of police officers arresting me and taking my cell phone.
Me: “Seriously? It’s a dirt road? or “That’s a traffic jam!”
Typical replies:
“Yes, it is against the law” Or
“It is against the law unless you have a written release from each person in the photograph.”
While there are many examples of digital or film recordings restrictions around the world, there are more than a few countries that prohibit ALL photography without a license from a government Ministry.
Or
“There may be government people’s houses here.”
“There are government buildings in this picture.”
Security Issues are Real
Don’t get me wrong. I have seen first hand that it is a dangerous world, and security can be a very serious matter. But occasionally, my mind wonders toward suspicion when considering measures that restricts a person’s right to see and comment on what is directly visible to hundreds of thousands of people. (See Is Photography Becoming Illegal?)
As an attorney, I view the “need” for photography through an evidentiary lense. Of course, most photographs are well intentioned efforts to share with friends and colleagues “evidence” of the good and not so good of places in the world. Most public photography, in my view, is largely harmless.
If most photograph is mostly harmless, the most obvious reason to prohibit “ALL” photos of places seen by thousands of individuals is to control the spread of embarrassing information. Perhaps the information is simply that a City has not exercised responsibility for traffic flow.
Concerns about criticism of such a thing may seem a small thing. But there is a wide variety of government styles, and government officials that are not willing to accept such a petty criticism and will want to control as much information as possible to prevent such an embarrassing matter from being transmitted across the world. Denial is easier if there is no “proof.”
Of course, this is irrational since so many have seen the embarrassing matter daily, including travelling foreigners.
Many of the No-Photography laws were written prior to the omnipresence of smart cameras. In that regard, cell phones pose a nasty problem for government officials concerned about “being seen.” A problem that is broadly solved with over reaching privacy and national security laws and control of the internet.
The Emperor’s New Clothes
The hew and cry of privacy and national security begins to come across somewhat like the “Emperor’s New Clothes” when the “secret” or privacy matter is plainly observed by so many and already exists throughout the internet and Google Earth. These security concerns sometimes ring a little hollow in the face of widespread use of recording technology by the public.
Evaluating actual security and privacy issues is a legitimate function of government responsible for the protection of its people and their protection of individual rights. But in some circumstances where privacy and security issues are raised it seems fair to ask, “Is this a pretext?”
# # # End # # #
How To Fight Corruption 