Originally written for LinkedIn

Last month, TIME magazine featured “The Defining IDEAS of 2019,” one being the worrisome future of surveillance in China. In Chongqing, an area with 15.35 million people, there are 2.58 million surveillance cameras, creating what the writer called an Orwellian ratio of one camera for every 5.9 citizens.

The key advantage of surveillance cameras is the ability to detect incidents in real-time and more rapidly respond, such as to accidents, congestion, theft or violent behavior. In 2013, two homemade pressure cooker bombs were detonated during the Boston Marathon, killing three people, and injuring several hundred others. Security cameras identified the two suspects, resulting in their apprehension.

Today, the number and quality of video cameras, used to monitor the Boston Marathon has increased, including programming the cameras to automatically turn towards the sound of gunshots. Using artificial intelligence, the cameras can identify when crowds are forming and use facial recognition to detect known perpetrators.

In China’s eastern coastal city of Rongcheng with a population of 670,000 people, facial recognition is used to distinguish behaviors, giving points for positive deeds and taking them away for transgressions. Every citizen is given 1,000 points. Fighting with a neighbor results in losing five points, whereas donating blood adds five. Falling below a certain threshold results in loss of privileges, such as not being able to get a loan or purchase a high-speed train ticket. Conversely, accumulating points provides access to perks such as discounted heating bills.

China’s social experiment in rewarding and removing points has been successful in shaping people’s behaviors and producing more altruistic citizens.

When I first read about Rongcheng, my first thought was “what a good idea.” Then the privacy side of my brain kicked in. Vacillating between it being a good idea and blatant disregard for people’s privacy, I solicited my husband’s opinion.

Having been a police officer and come from three generations of Los Angeles Police Department employees, including his grandfather being a captain, he felt it was a good idea, reasoning if you don’t do anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about.

Oh dear. My husband might be channeling Big Brother.

Who’s watching if no one is?

A few days later, an article in The Seattle Times regarding the investigation into the flawed design of the Boeing 737 MAX’s flight control system, centered on how the “largely self-certifying oversight regime” failed to catch the flaws. Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis with the aviation consulting firm Teal Group, commented Boeing displayed “an absence of leadership, an absence of strategy and an inability to communicate.”

Less than two weeks later, the Times published another article about Boeing. This time focused on internal documents, which suggested a troubling Boeing culture prioritized costs over safety and a need to meet schedules rather than deliver quality.

Maybe the idea of Big Brother isn’t a bad idea, especially when it comes to protecting human lives, whether from belligerent neighbors, miscreants on the streets, or manufacturers of food, pharmaceuticals, vehicles or other potentially harmful products.

We’d like to think that humans are more prone to do good than bad. However, rectitude can easily dissipate when acting or speaking could jeopardize a relationship, lead to being ostracized or result in being demoted or fired. The manners learned as a child are modified and contorted as the reality of adulthood redefines what’s necessary to survive in congested cities, claustrophobic housing, competitive careers, and communal cubicles.

It becomes easier to put on blinders and bumble through rather than make waves.

Facing up to oversight

What happens to us as a society if we turn a blind eye?

Seeking an answer, I reached a Sociology textbook off my shelf, turned to the first chapter, and was greeted with, “In mid-July 2010, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling held it’s first meeting in New Orleans… On shore, small business owners and workers in the fishing and tourist industries were grappling with the spill’s implications for their own livelihoods, as well as for the region as a whole.”[1]

Prior to the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, the government allowed oil companies to inspect and certify the safety of their own equipment.

In the past few years, there’s been a widespread endeavor to move towards companies and industries policing themselves, hiring their own inspectors and self-certifying they’re compliant with regulations. The pork industry has garnered considerable press for wanting to eliminate Agriculture Department health inspectors and determine the speed in which hogs are slaughtered, potentially jeopardizing worker safety and ability to isolate carcasses that could cause food poisoning.

This week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a proposed rule that would allow schools to cut the amount of vegetables and fruits required in student breakfasts and lunches. The potato lobby has been quietly pushing for this change. School districts wouldn’t be required to do what’s best for children – nearly 20% of which are considered obese – instead the rule would pave the way to serve more French fries, pizza, and other foods high in calories, saturated fat, and sodium.

Similarly, self-regulation is proposed for autonomous-vehicles, nuclear power plants and offshore oil drilling. What could possibly go wrong?

We applaud when a surveillance camera helps catch the bad guy (or gal) or sends a text to our travel app notifying us of an accident a few miles ahead. We breathe a sigh of relief when a municipal agency uncovers illicit activities committed by a company, such as polluting the environment or using tainted ingredients.

The TIME magazine article about surveillance in China concluded by sharing a story about a shopkeeper who was exasperated by a serial shoplifter. When the surveillance cameras outside her shop didn’t curtail the thefts, she installed six cameras inside her shop, eventually catching the thief. She commented, “Chinese people don’t care about privacy. We want security.”

While it might be audacious to recommend increasing the oversight of corporate and industry activities and policies, along with more fervently monitoring people’s public behaviors, the alternative doesn’t seem to be working. There’s a balance between the need for security – feeling confident walking along a street, traveling in a vehicle, swallowing a pill, and drinking tap water – and overreach. What defines these two divergent concepts will no doubt evolve in the coming years.

Thank you to Random Sky for his picture on Unsplash

[1] Sociology Matters, Fifth Edition, Richard T. Schaefer, DePaul University, McGraw Hill, 2012