This year in May, key provisions in the Patriot Act that allow the bulk collection of private data and information are set to expire. In light of that, I find it particularly chilling that within Middlebury’s ongoing micro-debate about security there is an erroneous proposal to increase surveillance by installing new security cameras outside of dining halls in an attempt to address concerns about theft.
This is not the first time the subject has been broached at Midd. In fact, similar discussions took place in 2002, 2005 and 2006. However, thus far Middlebury has thankfully remained – with the exception of the WRMC studio and the art museum – camera-free.
My main concern is that though the administration may claim our dining halls are public spaces, any student that has ever dragged themselves into Proctor sporting a t-shirt and pajama pants would beg to differ. Frankly I don’t see any space on campus as “public,” given that we go to a school of 2,500 students in rural Vermont, a place that we as students call “home” for 9 months a year. If someone is going to film me in my house I at least want a syndicated reality TV series so I can get royalties from it.
And beyond the question of privacy lays a perhaps more important question of efficacy. We tend to assume that our privacy is being given up as payment for the “security” that these cameras provide. But you might be surprised to learn that a great deal of research shows cameras actually fail to decrease the incidence of crime, including theft. The United Kingdom has an extensive network of 40,000 cameras that were deployed in an effort to reduce crime in urban areas, but a 2005 comprehensive meta-analysis by two criminologists, Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs, found that cameras had no overall effect.
The story is the same on this side of the Atlantic. A study conducted by the USC School of Public Policy, Planning and Development, found that LAPD’s COMPSTAT figures from before and after the introduction of security cameras show no statistically significant impact on crime. A 1995 study by Rosemary Erickson, a Ph.D. in Forensic Sociology, found that not only do cameras fail to deter theft, but according to a series of interviews, most would-be and have-been criminals don’t care about the presence of cameras in the areas where they commit their crimes.
And then there is the “peace of mind” argument that, cameras, though ineffectual, somehow make us feel more secure. Ignoring the logical fallacy within that line of argument, there is also extensive evidence to suggest that cameras do not make people feel more secure. The Gill and Spriggs study mentioned earlier found that cameras had zero effect on perceived safety. That is to say, in return for a gross violation of our privacy, not only do cameras fail to provide security, they don’t provide peace of mind either.
The underlying problem is not a lack of surveillance, but a lack of trust. Ben Bogin (the Student Co-Chair of the Community Council) said last year during the April SGA discussion that to limit dorm damage and theft, we should focus on a social honor code to build a culture of integrity instead of installing security cameras. And he’s right; cameras build a culture of paranoia. Even if you close your eyes and wish really hard, the tiny red lights on cameras will never start blinking “I trust you” in Morse code.
So when you walk in and out of the dining halls today, breathe a sigh of relief knowing that you’re not being recorded and you can be yourself. Because in the end, the sense of trust at Middlebury is one of the things that makes this school great. I refuse to give up trust in my fellow students. Cameras have no place at Middlebury.
