I’ve been concerned about the government surveillance issue, even as I helped develop private surveillance databases at Rochester Institute of Technology in the pre-Facebook era. Many felt I was paranoid about government abuse of such systems. I oppose government control of private surveillance and government exploitation of private surveillance. However, we need to be careful to keep any state party position in line with the principles of the Libertarian Part, including the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens to freely assemble and form companies that collaborate with other citizens to collect images and catalog them. Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube, Yahoo, and even America Online has been doing this for decades.
I would not want the government telling me that I could not install security cameras around my own home, nor would I want the government accessing those cameras without my permission. The same principle should apply to other private property owners. I am therefore reluctant to support government restrictions on privately owned security-camera systems merely because I find the technology or its potential uses troubling.
Drone cameras and remote controlled hunting cameras are currently allowed to record images from public areas, though there are restrictions preventing surveillance where citizens have an expectation of privacy, inside tents, campers, bathrooms, outhouses, and national parks.
Where I believe we can draw an important line is between private surveillance and government surveillance.
A private citizen may observe what is plainly visible from his property or install cameras to protect his own property. That does not necessarily give the government an unlimited right to collect, aggregate, retain, search, or analyze the resulting information.
The concern with systems such as Flock, Ring, and other interconnected camera networks is not simply that cameras exist. The more fundamental question is whether government agencies can obtain and aggregate information from privately operated surveillance systems without individualized suspicion, a warrant, or meaningful judicial oversight.
Our Constitution does not prohibit people from observing one another in public. It does, however, place important restrictions on government searches and seizures. I think the proper question is therefore not, “Should private cameras be permitted?” but rather, “At what point does government access to privately collected information become a government search?”
I would support a clear rule that private individuals and businesses retain broad authority to operate security cameras on their own property, while government agencies face meaningful constitutional restrictions when they seek access to, retain, aggregate, or analyze the resulting data.
That distinction allows us to protect both principles: the right of private citizens to protect themselves and their property, and the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable government surveillance.
I am not comfortable with government censorship of private security cameras, but I am equally uncomfortable with the government quietly building a comprehensive surveillance network from cameras that citizens installed for entirely private purposes.
The difficult constitutional question is determining exactly where that line should be drawn. I believe that line should favor individual privacy and require government surveillance to be justified by individualized suspicion and appropriate judicial oversight rather than by the mere availability of data.
Loren Jay Chassels, DO, MST, FAAIM, FAWM
Disclaimer: Member articles are published to encourage debate and discussion within the party. The views and opinions in each piece belong to the author and do not always reflect any platform plank or official LP stance. We encourage people to challenge the status quo — including our own.