Watching the Watchers

In the blue luminescence of Los Angeles International Airport’s glowing columns, you steal a kiss. And, knowingly or not, you become a bit player in the increasingly ubiquitous reality TV show that might be called Life in America.

The 1,200 new closed-circuit cameras that airport officials want to mount throughout LAX to thwart terrorists would join cameras already spying on Christian youth groups proselytizing on the stairs of the Lincoln Monument and union organizers discussing strategy on the sidewalks of Virginia Beach, Va. There the cameras come equipped with face-recognition technology, allowing police to match the mugs of strolling citizens against a database of mug shots.

Comforting? Unsettling? Who decides?

Since 9/11, the government has thrown its formidable weight onto the security side of the tenuous balance between safety and liberty. Now, a few legislators want to make sure authorities don’t forget the other side.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) wants to require government agencies to file privacy impact reports similar to environmental impact statements. Another idea, by Sens. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), would create a national commission to recommend standards for the use of surveillance technology.

Both approaches need considerable scrutiny, but at least lawmakers are finally showing concern about the rush to make the U.S. safe by--among other intrusions--videotaping Americans’ every waking moment.

In part because video is a relatively new technology, few of the long-standing protections that keep the government from indiscriminate eavesdropping apply to visual spying--although the potential for abuse by a J. Edgar Hoover or local sheriff is similar.

During these times of terrorism, we’re willing to concede that the discomfort that cameras cause innocent passengers at places such as LAX is overshadowed by the chance that the cameras will deter someone from strolling in with an AK-47--or help capture the next person to shoot up an airline counter.

Even then, cameras may not be economical. In a recent two-year period, Britain spent an estimated 75% of its crime prevention budget on surveillance employing almost 40,000 government cameras. A report by one crime prevention group suggests that adding streetlights would do more to reduce criminal violence. LAX will pay as much as $20 million to bolster its video surveillance. That’s a lot of Alpo for bomb-sniffing dogs.

Grudging tolerance of surveillance at airports does not mean people like being spied upon--although individualism and distrust of authority will probably wither as Americans become increasingly inured to being on camera each time they visit an abortion clinic, attend a gun show or sit under a tree reading the Koran. And until lawmakers come up with reasonable privacy safeguards, there will always be jittery officials eager to plant video cams in the local park’s jacarandas.