From THE VN/VO:
Every week, it seems, a new form of technology for enforcing laws and improving security in America is debated - national ID cards, cameras on street corners, computer-assisted profiling, and so on. And every week the same arguments, laden with Orwell references, are thrown back and forth. Are we becoming a police state? Is it worth giving up such-and-such freedoms for such-and-such security increases?
In reality, however, it's a lot more complicated than that. True security in these times does require sweeping increases in technology, but it will only help if we rethink the way in which we create and enforce our laws. Technology is never the greatest threat to personal freedom.
Classifying myself as a social libertarian (small "l" intended), it may surprise you that I am completely on board with most every increase in technology and consolidation of personal data by law enforcement. Why? Because almost always - even though science-fiction movies would generally differ - better technology ensures greater personal freedom.
The first argument that everyone always has against the expansion of technology within government is that it brings us closer to a "police state." It makes sense as every half-baked movie and television show on the subject - well, they just tell us so. I suppose that's good enough for most people. Unfortunately, while it makes for exciting fiction, it is a completely flawed vision of sociological cause and effect.
A police state has nothing to do with underlying level of technology its society affords. Police are human. Lawmakers are human. Put simply, if America - or any of its states, counties, or what have you - wants to become a police state, it will do so regardless of technology or lack of technology. While the actual reasons that police states arise - and they certainly can in any nation - are outside the boundaries of this article, let's put it simply: The reasons are based in sociology and economics, not technology.
Most people, however, don't actually believe America will become a police state. Even those who use the term "police state" are merely over-extrapolating a common and well-founded fear that our investigative and law enforcement agencies are rife with human error. (Caveat: This, at least to me, is not an indictment on law enforcement. Humans are imperfect. We're supposed to be. Our real strength is building tools to do the hard work and intricate analysis for us.)
Article comments
1 - Natalie Davis
God, the broad brush...
Mr. Falvey, there are those who do believe quite literally that a police state is well on its way and that the start of it has begun.
And no, "we all" are not breaking laws on a daily basis. I, for one, do not. Your statement is inaccurate.