By Paramjit Bakhshi
Unconnected incidents often come together in our consciousness and change our perception of things.
In this case the first was the apparently innocuous inauguration of the CCTV project in the city. George Orwell’s “Big Brother” did not sneak up on us, unexpectedly or surreptitiously; it was accorded a civic reception. The second was the experience of being extorted by Assam police near Guwahati airport. They were cashing in on the “intelligence” that most cars from Meghalaya do not have “pollution under control” certificates and hence their owners could be coerced to cough up a bit.
Though the “copper” (cop being a derivative of copper) connection is the most glaring link between the two incidents there are much larger issues that connect technology, governance, morality and responsibility.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that superior technology alone can win the battle against crime. Most people will be surprised to know that the US, undoubtedly the most technologically advanced country has the largest prison population in the world and the second highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. According to Wikipedia at the end of 2007 though the US had less than 5% of the world’s population it had it had 23.4% of the world’s adult jail and prison population. Through its juvenile courts and the adult criminal system the US also puts more of its youth behind bars than any other country.
Of course modern surveillance technology helps put a lot of criminals in prison, and in our case the most notable was, the arrest of Nirbhaya’s rapists courtesy CCTV footage. However such technology also enables police departments to gather vast amounts of sensitive data, about most citizens, most of who may never have committed, or are unlikely to commit, any crime. In a talk on TED, Catherine Crump lists some of the technologies which police use for mass monitoring and details how police forces have access to vast amount of very private data. Such access to private data can be dangerous in the hands of unscrupulous police officers who can use it, to black mail people or extort money as the cops near Guwahati did.
An argument has been made that we all need to sacrifice a modicum of privacy for the sake of security. But with surveillance equipment becoming ever more intrusive, is there any way to determine the quantum of privacy invasion that keeps taking place. It is well known that phones and emails are easily tapped and hacked and even those of world leaders are often not spared. With CCTV cameras and license plate readers, it has become easy to track an individual throughout the day. Parabolic microphones enable even private one to one conversations to be monitored and recorded. And satellites can film each and every metre of this planet. Indeed today we are all living in very transparent glass houses and the only parts left private are our unspoken thoughts.
More than twenty years ago Neil Postman in a book called “Technopoly”, made out a very compelling case that introduction of new technology does not just change the rules of the game but the very game itself. To quote, “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything. In the year 1500, we did not have old Europe plus the printing press. We had a different Europe.”
The same has happened in Shillong. After the coming of RCC buildings we do not have RCC buildings plus the old Shillong. What we have is a new Shillong which is unrecognisable from the old Shillong. Easy money from mass exploitation of natural resources and from unbridled corruption has also paved the way for newer types of crime. Petty crime which CCTV will help combat is not such a major problem now. What should constitute a bigger headache for law enforcers is how to deal with militants and pressure groups and how to stop organised extortion, kidnappings and killings. Normally the major players behind these crimes are well known and though the police are at the forefront of these skirmishes it is not guilt but political considerations which determine how the engagement is carried out. Most often the guilty are not even arrested and occasionally even a red carpet is laid out for their so called return to mainstream or for reconciliation.
This sort of political expediency compounds the problem and no amount of new weaponry or modernisation of the police force can provide a satisfactory solution. It is also a fact that politicians resort to such accommodation because they too are on the make and are in no position to enforce public morality or bureaucratic accountability.
The truth of the matter is that successful crime management has more to do with the way societies operate than it has to do with policing. In a study carried out by Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus, University of Birmingham it was found that the quantum of violence, crime, drug addiction and even mental illness was in direct proportion to the degree of economic inequality in a society. Countries such as Norway, Sweden and Japan where there was less economic disparity fared much better on these counts than richer countries like the US. Living in an erstwhile egalitarian society one intuitively realises this truth and with a bit of reflection it is easy to discern a very direct link in our state between the increase of economic disparity and corruption to the birth of militancy and the beginning of civil unrest.
So let us not get carried away by the notion that technological surveillance and advanced weaponry will ensure a return to peace of the state. What is essential is a broad and intensive interaction between the citizens and the government. Unfortunately technology does just the opposite and reduces the scope for human interface. Look at how mechanical our communication with the corporate sector is when we dial their call centres. We are mostly communicating with computers through IVR and DTMF tones. And look at the life of our youngsters who exist in a virtual world bereft of any real human contact. Apart from becoming physically unfit they are likely to be social misfits and loners. In our hurry to embrace technology we never carry out any impact studies. The real problem is that technology ends up getting used just because it is available. Napalm bombs, cruise missiles and drones are used as an easy way out. But we know that there is never an easy way out. Conflicts and problems linger for decades as evidenced in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and technological superiority instead of solving a problem often exacerbates it.
Experience tells us that even simple technologies such as fire and a knife can be used for our good as well to our detriment. The danger lies in the fact that we do not recognise such dualities when it comes to more complex technologies simply because we do not understand them. We barely see the pros and remain unaware of the cons. As Mr. Postman, says, “stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. Technology, in sum, is both a friend and enemy.”
Before concluding may I take you on an Orwellian journey into the very near future? It is May 2017 and we have an ongoing demonstration against, let’s say, price rise. For more than three days the protestors have occupied Police Bazaar and blocked all adjacent roads. In spite of its intense efforts government has been unable to convince the demonstrators to move out and clear the venue. The Home Minister sanctions the deployment of crowd control drones. In the first wave a pepper solution is aerially sprayed on the protestors. Eighty percent of the protestors vacate the venue. A second round of drone attack is ordered this time using rubber bullets. All the remaining protestors are removed, many in ambulances. Fortunately the last resort drones armed with real bullets and concussion grenades are not required. The entire operation is watched by the Security Committee on large monitors.
This is fiction, apart from the following facts: 1. CCTVs are already here 2. Lucknow police already has five pepper spraying drones for crowd control 3. The game changer in this situation is that since the operation is carried out by drones no individual (unlike field officers today) can ever be held accountable. It is worth remembering that in spite of many civilian deaths no American drone operator has been identified far less held responsible to date.
Technology always empowers without responsibility. Thus in this case I too join in saying, Achtung and Jingmaham.
The writer can be contacted at [email protected]