Published 09/20/23
The fervor of the Republican National Convention last month bore witness to vehement criticism against the Democrats' perceived plans to defund the police. The spotlight on this topic underlines the traction it has gained, albeit remaining a distant idea for conservatives and centrist voters. The winds of change, however, are being felt in some localities like Minneapolis, with activists vocally advocating for this transformation.
The path towards abolishing traditional policing in favor of other community-centric models is riddled with obstacles, as the divide on this subject runs deep. The concept of "frontlash", as illustrated by Political Scientist Vesla Mae Weaver, is a significant deterrent. It denotes the strategy to stymie political backlash through covert means, a tactic historically employed to counter civil rights progress. Today, as the discussions around defunding the police gain momentum, the shadow of surveillance technology looms large, threatening to replace human policing with electronic oversight.
The roots of police surveillance trace back to the mid-1800s, with significant spikes during periods of radicalism. The lens of surveillance has often been directed disproportionately towards black individuals, a narrative that continues to this day albeit through more sophisticated means. Modern surveillance encompasses a vast array of technologies - from surveillance cameras and drones to electronic monitoring shackles and data-extraction techniques. The emerging trend of drone patrols and the potential of drones being utilized for law enforcement or even lethal measures paints a dystopian picture.
Electronic Monitoring (EM), though touted as an alternative to traditional incarceration, extends the boundaries of carceral spaces beyond physical prison walls. Its current form, despite being cumbersome and prone to technical glitches, is just the tip of the iceberg. Future iterations of EM technology promise to be smaller, more powerful, and capable of harvesting extensive data, accelerating the move towards a surveillance-heavy law enforcement model, especially amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Experts echo concerns about the trajectory of these technological advancements. The fear is that the momentum towards defunding the police could be hijacked by a shift towards surveillance policing. This shift not only undermines the essence of police abolition but propels society into a reality where surveillance is ubiquitous. The racial bias entrenched within the US justice system could be exacerbated with the adoption of predictive algorithms and spatial restrictions, further marginalizing racially oppressed communities.
Historical precedents such as exclusion zones and aggressive surveillance models employed in cities like Camden, New Jersey, serve as harbingers of what could potentially become a nationwide norm. The integration of private security systems with public law enforcement initiatives, as seen in Philadelphia's “safecam” network, is a testament to the blurring lines between personal privacy and public surveillance.
The commercial sector too is capitalizing on this narrative, with companies like SimpliSafe offering their surveillance infrastructure to aid law enforcement efforts, further entrenching surveillance culture within domestic spheres.
As activists champion the cause of police abolition, the threat of surveillance policing is real and imminent. The demands for police reforms may need to be broadened to encompass restrictions on surveillance technologies, ensuring that the transition from human policing does not lead to a surveillance-dominated model.
Historically, moments of crisis have often been succeeded by expanded repression under new guises. The struggle for police abolition stands at a crucial juncture, where the choice between genuine reform and a surveillance-dominated model hangs in the balance. It's imperative that this momentum towards redefining public safety isn’t derailed by the allure of technological solutions, which could potentially usher in a new era of repressive surveillance under the guise of reform.
Comentários