Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1995/tracking.parolees.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
tracking parolees
``` [Adapted from a message to the Privacy Digest.]
From a privacy perspective, some of the most worrisome new technologies are emerging from projects to convert defense technologies to civilian use; they provide grounds for concern that we might be militarizing civilian life. A case study in this process is found in the following article:
Ed Mendel, SD firm seeks a body "bug" to track parolees, San Diego Union-Tribune, 1 May 1995, pages A1, A10.
This article reports work by a San Diego area firm, Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) to produce a tracking device that can be fastened to the body of a parolee. The article opens as follows:
A convenience store is robbed. Were any parolees present?
A sex offender stops at a schoolyard. Can authorities be alerted?
The article rapidly surveys the technical arguments, cites civil liberties concerns, and closes with an endorsement of such systems by Newt Gingrich.
How can we reason about this? It's easy to get on a slippery slope. Given the choice between keeping someone in jail for an extra year and putting them on the street with a tracking device, the latter option seems like less of an invasion of privacy -- not to mention cheaper. But, beyond parolees, what is the class of people for whom it is reasonable to prescribe automatic tracking?
prisoners on work-release or furlough programs? probationers? they're mentioned in the article deadbeat dads? deadbeat dads who have been caught skipping out on their payments? other debtors? guest workers? other foreigners? sex offenders who have served their terms? children whose parents are worried that they might be kidnapped? children whose custodial parent has reason to believe that they might be kidnapped by the non-custodial parent? children whose parents are concerned that they might run away? children who have run away repeatedly? children taking part in school-sponsored field trips? children whose parents don't want them crossing the street? elderly people who suffer from dementia? psychiatric patients? gang members? people who have not been convicted of crimes but who have been served with restraining orders keeping them away from someone's residence or workplace?* people who have repeatedly violated such orders, or who have a history of violence? political dissidents? members of organizations deemed terrorist under the terms of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act?* people who are getting preferential insurance rates in exchange for an electronically monitored promise to stay out of certain neighborhoods?* employees of a firm that makes electronic tracking a condition of employment?
You can probably extend this list. I would honestly like to know how many people in the United States fall under each of the descriptions I have just offered. Then we can easily total up the percentage of the population that would be automatically tracked if various criteria were adopted. The answer might be scary.
But to speak of "tracking" greatly underestimates the capabilities of these systems. If the tracking device is coupled with a cheap communications device such as a pager then the person being tracked can be submitted to an arbitrarily complicated control regime. For example, the person might be restricted to a certain schedule (at work during certain hours and home during all other hours, following commuting routes back and forth), and a protocol might be established to negotiate permission to deviate from the schedule. This negotiation might be similar to the clearing of a credit card in a store. American Express has an elaborate expert system for this purpose, and we might imagine a similar scheme for people whose movements are restricted. The constraints imposed on an individual might be tightened or relaxed as they change legal status, compile a record of good behavior, pass certain examinations, and so on. Such schemes would probably be framed in humane terms. For example, the Union-Tribune article says:
Backers ... say the option of tracking some parolees and probationers could provide more protection for the public, help cut prison costs and carefully control offenders as they learn work habits and make other social adjustments needed for a productive life.
What habits and other social adjustments do you need for a productive life? I'd start thinking about it, because the scenarios I am sketching are now completely plausible.
Phil Agre, UCSD ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.