I ain't afraid of no cameras

Date: 04/03/2005
Source: Pipe Dream
Author: Aaron Riccio

The 15 minutes of fame reality TV offers is not the reason I bring up this issue. This stems from a more serious security issue that makes me support surveillance. The more the merrier. While we need to be careful of violating certain privacies, bathroom voyeurs for instance, BU security is neither spiraling out of control, nor abusing power.

Not only are the current measures patrolling and monitoring student traffic non-intrusive, they're underutilized. Only those with something to hide should be uncomfortable under the invisible eye of cameras and keycard logs. I feel more secure with Big Brother over my shoulder, knowing an electronic trail exists to protect me.

The University is just protecting its constituency. It is more than entitled to install security cameras, just as banks observe their ATM sites. There were no complaints when footage from a "spy-cam" caught a student illegally using another's banking card last year; why all this hullabaloo now?

The revelation that we're being recorded has angered some to the point of calling this a panoptic lifestyle. Focault designed the panopticon as a mental deterrent: the school needs to make us afraid of constant surveillance for that model to work. The fear of being caught by an eternally vigilant force is the panopticon that keeps us in check. As an extreme example, imagine heat sensors in the Nature Preserve. Students might not indulge in certain “late-night activities” there if they believed themselves compromised.

I like the panopticon because it is non-intrusive. We aren't held up in lines by security checks and metal detectors: cameras, keycards and sensors are mostly harmless measures that discourage crime. I agree with Professor Haver (in the Feb. 25 issue) that a computer chip would clearly be intrusive and potentially harmful. Yet, until cameras have octopus arms to go with their fish-eye lenses, the two have nothing in common. At worst, a camera might accidentally fall on you.

Haver also suggests that simply having the capacity to track students is a means of “social control.” This seems like a shot in the dark, since tracking movement is far removed from limiting or restricting it. Whether we like to admit it or not, the more our guardians know, the better they can protect us. If there are problems with this system, they lie entirely on whom we trust.

There is no doubt the school has deliberately obfuscated facts, and the current administration doesn't act with students in mind. But if we can't trust our educators, landlords and police department, we're setting ourselves up for endless paranoia and recluse.

I don't have the time to be a conspiracy theorist, I'm a college student who likes to party. I choose to trust these once-removed forms of surveillance and encourage the installation of cameras in public places to deter crime. I'm a senior here who has never had his rights impeded by security; I feel safe and comfortable on this campus. I'll vote against subcutaneous SMART chips, but until I turn to a life of crime, I'm glad to have Big Brother watching out for me.

This article may be reproduced as long as the source Footprint Home Security is provided as a link.

Back to Free Expert Advice

Back to Footprint Home Security