The cameras are everywhere. From pockets to street corners, to concerts and games, the world is full of image and video capturing devices. One can venture into the eyes of these devices without willingly participating. Walk the dog on the trail, take a friend to a concert and one might just be photographed.
Given that one might not desire such “captures” to take place, modern technology should include an option to protect the identity of those involved. If one does not want to be captured, he or she should have the right to be blurred or distorted in some form that renders the captured image free of identifying marks.
As Native Americans were suspicious of the photograph, contemporary citizens might find similar concerns with technology of today. For whatever reason one feels uncomfortable it is to the benefit of all involved that technology work to embrace the rights of privacy and establish means to remove the unintended subjects of photography.
First, some foundation…
Citizens grant authority to the state to regulate and control populations. These forces work to ensure that the citizens within that society adhere to the established rules and behaviors of expectations. These “rules”, also known as laws, are constructed by the society and subscribed to by those who enter into it. One who disagrees with these laws has an ability within the system to express his or her ideas and work towards a change, removal or creation of different legislation. This is the model of society we have developed through time and the one in which we function on a daily basis.
But what about a crisis?
On August 9, 2014 an unarmed eighteen-year-old was shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Without discussing the details (all of which are readily prevalent on this domain known as internet), the event set off a series of protests.
My aim here is not to consider the justification for the reaction by either side. Reacting to a tragedy with violence and actions that destabilize a community cannot be condoned regardless of outrage or perceived abuse of power. Sadly both sides, the police forces and those aligned with the victim’s perspective feel an abuse of power has occurred and are responding with an increased use of force.
My question here is with whom does the burden of proof reside? Given that the event has occurred, it is my opinion that the burden of proof exists with the state. The power invested in the state to enforce laws, and in this situation deploy lethal force, demands a justification after the fact. As citizens we must see evidence that justifies the officer’s actions. For the benefit of all involved, the state must provide evidence that explains the situation. There is no justification for rioting or reacting in any way that further destabilizes the community.
Additionally to this point, a community that perceives any potential need for lethal force (aka every community) must establish a set of tools to gather evidence in case proof to justify action is needed. In other words the forces of the state must recognize the incredible power of force granted to them by the citizenry. Entrusted to protect the laws, they are given immense amount of power. Such power expands beyond the use of force and also includes the responsibility to justify action and display to the citizens that each and every action is justified.
Our identities are similar to badges. We wear them for authority and use them to communicate who we are. As we age we change our badges: progressing from student to professional to spouse and the slew of other roles we play. We have multiple badges, stemming both from our personal and professional roles. One might use the metaphor of exchanging badges to summarize human existence. Exchanging one badge for another we gradually work to learn who we are and fully embrace the roles we select.
For those without a sense of self, it is likely that they do not have “their badge”. What role do you play in society? For some this question is easily answered. For some it is their personal life that gives them identity: son, father, grandfather. For others the professional realm will serve: teacher, writer, worker. Still others find definition from the arts: painter, singer, critic. While all categories are used, the essential process one must undergo is the selection of a badge. Be without a badge and one is absent of identity.
Just as Nixon drained the symbolic power of the two-finger peace salute, figures who embrace the symbols crafted to criticize them quickly drain symbolic power. Symbols are, by definition, an object that represents something else. They are stand-ins for bigger ideas. The peace salute, the red ribbon or the complicated matrix of patriotic emblems all work to represent a larger idea or cause. Groups utilize symbols to simplify a message and create a stamp from which to mark their work. Need to make a statement quickly or refute some absurd state? The symbol is the best bet.
And while symbols hold great meaning, their power is easily drained and erased by imitation. Embraced by one who misrepresents the cause creates a static of understanding. Dilute the message and the message is defeated. For groups who seek to eliminate their opposition the keenest tactic is to not parody the other sides imagery but instead embrace it and redefine it for their own.
Herein lies the danger of the symbol’s simplicity. While powerful and direct, the symbol’s power comes only from its lack of complicated detail. By removing detail and nuance the audience does not fully receive the ideas behind the idea. It is far easier to simply stick the decal on the car or wave the random banner. Strength in numbers, yes, but once a symbol becomes common fare its power is depleted. View the countless decals of the numbers 13.1 and one begins to be less impressed by one’s bragging of athletic prowess. One must be careful when using symbols: powerful when limited but easily depleted, our symbols are less our greatest bullets and more a sharpened jab to the brain. We may strike with solid fervor but with every continued strike the punch becomes better known and the opposition’s ability to counterattack or even disregard becomes all the more easy.
A scientist who toils towards progress works with intellectual property rights by her side. Knowing that her great discovery will be protected so that the organization she works for can profit and further fund discoveries allows her to absorb additional costs. In essence, greater risk allows for greater reward if a major breakthrough is found. Medical companies often cite these protections as essential components to their work: by profiting from a drug like Viagra, Pfizer can work towards medications for highly puzzling yet unknown diseases. Is the road towards the cure for cancer paved in prescriptions for Viagra or Botox?
These controls over intellectual property are not eternal. Depending on the industry the law declares a certain amount of time for protection to exist. Once extinguished the “secret sauce” is revealed and other companies can create their own forms of the drug. This gives way to the wave of generic forms that are far more affordable. And yet despite the benefits of more people having access to these medications one wonders whether longer extensions of protections might give way to faster discoveries of solution to our most horrible conditions.
Might eternal patent protection be better? Is it unethical to buy generic because in doing so we deny the “creator’s work” from receiving compensation? On strays away from this conclusion when details of profit are considered. Pharmaceutical companies are far from destitute and continue to discover important medications in spite of the loss of protection.
In the end, its humanity that charges forward. Despite the global spread of workers dedicated to finding solutions for a multitude of companies each works towards the common goal of fixing human ills. No matter the politics or legal details the scientists who toil towards progress do so not for their companies well being but for the unending war against our ills. Each battles for a better tomorrow and despite the details that come between progress and profit a greater tomorrow comes only by the grace of the brains and brawn of those concerned.
While cultural values vary from community to community, it is society’s role to facilitate discussion and enforcement. Varied and wide-ranging, the perspectives we hold stem from numerous sources.
Perhaps a religious group believes in varied rights between the genders, or another feels that certain foods should not be eaten. These are real examples from our society that we allow to exist and often celebrate as unique features of the group. Of the Amish or other orthodox communities we recognize a unique way of living and see their existence as a sign that we live in a rational and fair society. Only tyrants squash any sense of “other.”
Who is to say that one group’s ideas are better than another? As a society we collectively discuss the varied ideas and come to a consensus about ideal rules. Such “universal values” come as products of consensus. We allow for massive differences and yet work to make sense of the diversity. What is best for the group is not decided by a specific person; instead it is a concept determined by a massive conversation. One of our greatest accomplishment as a society is this allowance for diversity.