Does new technology make us more free or less free? It’s easy to say “both,” and point to examples on either side. And in fact, some uses of technology support the cause of individual liberty and others work against it. I believe the biggest threat to our freedom in the long term is when governments […]
Does new technology make us more free or less free?
It’s easy to say “both,” and point to examples on either side. And in fact, some uses of technology support the cause of individual liberty and others work against it.
I believe the biggest threat to our freedom in the long term is when governments or law enforcement agencies grab the exclusive right for themselves to use new technologies.
Here’s how it works. A new technology appears. Police say they can use it but citizens can’t. If this is accepted by the courts and the public, the government now has more power and citizens less.
Over time, the accumulation of these new powers upsets the balance of power between the state and the people, and our freedom is increasingly eroded.
One old example is the use of audio and video recording technology during police interrogations.
A century ago, no such recordings were made. Police interviewed suspects and witnesses. In court, it was the detective’s word against the suspect’s. But new tape recording and later video recording technology enabled a successful power grab by the police.
Police can record interrogations. Suspects cannot. As a result, both honest and abusive police have a technology advantage, and both innocent and guilty suspects have a disadvantage that didn’t used to exist before the technology existed.
Police can present any subset of an interrogation they like, or claim that it wasn’t recorded if the recording doesn’t support their case. The suspect has no such advantage, and is denied the opportunity to gather evidence of police misconduct.
There are much newer examples.
A groundbreaking story in The New York Times this weekend revealed that hundreds of local police departments in the United States routinely spy on citizens via their cell phones, and track their locations, “with little or no court oversight.”
The article points out that cell phone carriers have set up profitable menus of services to offer to these departments, such as suspects’ locations, the tracing of texts and phone calls and others.
Any citizen requesting similar information would be denied.
It’s a new technology capability, and police are asserting a monopoly on its use. Even more disturbing is that this de facto monopoly on the use of these technologies is being granted not by congress or the courts, but by corporations.
We can also see new technology power grabs coming soon.
The widespread police use of remote-controlled drone aircraft predicted by just about everybody will raise some interesting legal questions. For example, can police use drones to peek into people’s backyards, or does that violate the Constitution’s 4th-Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”?
One possibility is that, as with many technologies in the past, law enforcement agencies will be granted the exclusive right to use drone technology along with an exception to (or a new definition of) the 4th Amendment.
Another possibility was raised recently by John Villasenor, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in an NPR interview. He points out that a 2001 case established that when “the government uses a device that is not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search.”
In that case, if drones grow in popularity among consumers to the point where they can be found to be “in general public use” then drone spying on backyards would not be “searches,” and would thereby not be banned by the Constitution.
In either of the cases, the police would retain exclusive use of the information gathered by drones, as well as the knowledge of exact details of the surveillance.
Are we going to accept this?
The bigger question is this: What should a free society do in order to safeguard its freedom as new technologies come online?
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t mention video cameras, cell phones or drones. But it clearly attempts to prevent government exclusivity over and use and control of, say, media technology or gun technology.
Similarly, we need to work hard to prevent such exclusivity over new technologies not imagined by the framers of the Constitution.
For example, I believe suspects should have the right to record police interrogations if the police have that right. Why not?
I believe information about what data was gathered by police from the cell phone company should be available to the targets upon request.
And I believe information about what is being “droned” should be publicly available.
There are plenty of examples where exclusivity has been denied to authorities, and the need for public safety has been balanced successfully against the public’s right to know. For example, live police radio chatter is available to the public using radios, the Internet or even mobile apps. Police are not allowed exclusive use of the airwaves.
We should also be aware that law enforcement agencies will always try to give themselves exclusive use over every useful new technology. The public needs only to do nothing in order to slouch toward a police state.
Note that this phenomenon does not require any malicious intent on the part of the authorities. Police genuinely do and should want to use all tools at their disposal to catch crooks and terrorists.
But as a society, we need a principle of application that whenever government authorities are given permission to use a technology, the public must be given the ability to use that same technology in the other direction — or at least have access to or knowledge of what information has been gathered.
We must resist the provably incorrect assumption that all authorities are innocent and all suspects are guilty. Instead, permission to use any new technology must be based upon reality, in which authorities are capable of abuses and citizens can be wrongly accused.
The best way to approach future technologies as they come on line is to cautiously grant permission for governments and police agencies to use them — but only if citizens can use them, too.
ALSO SEE:
Browser Security Comparison: Firefox vs. IE vs. Chrome
65 Open Source Replacements for Security Software
The Remarkable Rise of Android Malware
Web Application Firewalls: Buying Guide
Huawei’s AI Update: Things Are Moving Faster Than We Think
FEATURE | By Rob Enderle,
December 04, 2020
Keeping Machine Learning Algorithms Honest in the ‘Ethics-First’ Era
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Guest Author,
November 18, 2020
Key Trends in Chatbots and RPA
FEATURE | By Guest Author,
November 10, 2020
FEATURE | By Samuel Greengard,
November 05, 2020
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Guest Author,
November 02, 2020
How Intel’s Work With Autonomous Cars Could Redefine General Purpose AI
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Rob Enderle,
October 29, 2020
Dell Technologies World: Weaving Together Human And Machine Interaction For AI And Robotics
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Rob Enderle,
October 23, 2020
The Super Moderator, or How IBM Project Debater Could Save Social Media
FEATURE | By Rob Enderle,
October 16, 2020
FEATURE | By Cynthia Harvey,
October 07, 2020
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Guest Author,
October 05, 2020
CIOs Discuss the Promise of AI and Data Science
FEATURE | By Guest Author,
September 25, 2020
Microsoft Is Building An AI Product That Could Predict The Future
FEATURE | By Rob Enderle,
September 25, 2020
Top 10 Machine Learning Companies 2020
FEATURE | By Cynthia Harvey,
September 22, 2020
NVIDIA and ARM: Massively Changing The AI Landscape
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Rob Enderle,
September 18, 2020
Continuous Intelligence: Expert Discussion [Video and Podcast]
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By James Maguire,
September 14, 2020
Artificial Intelligence: Governance and Ethics [Video]
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By James Maguire,
September 13, 2020
IBM Watson At The US Open: Showcasing The Power Of A Mature Enterprise-Class AI
FEATURE | By Rob Enderle,
September 11, 2020
Artificial Intelligence: Perception vs. Reality
FEATURE | By James Maguire,
September 09, 2020
Anticipating The Coming Wave Of AI Enhanced PCs
FEATURE | By Rob Enderle,
September 05, 2020
The Critical Nature Of IBM’s NLP (Natural Language Processing) Effort
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | By Rob Enderle,
August 14, 2020
Mike Elgan is an American journalist, blogger, columnist, and podcaster. He is a columnist for publications including Computerworld, Cult of Android, Cult of Mac, Forbes, Datamation, eWeek, and Baseline.
Datamation is the leading industry resource for B2B data professionals and technology buyers. Datamation's focus is on providing insight into the latest trends and innovation in AI, data security, big data, and more, along with in-depth product recommendations and comparisons. More than 1.7M users gain insight and guidance from Datamation every year.
Property of TechnologyAdvice. © 2025 TechnologyAdvice. All Rights Reserved
Advertiser Disclosure: Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which TechnologyAdvice receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. TechnologyAdvice does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.
