Electronic Surveillance

I know how it is when you have to leave your little children. You cannot find out what goes on in your absence. The children don’t know how to tell you. That’s why people are installing these wireless devices that send a video signal to a nearby base station, and then on to - well, let’s say, you. I would assume there is some kind of access code that makes you feel secure about your children’s pictures being filtered through that central location. I don’t know the details. I would never treat anybody so disrespectfully as to spy on them like that, and even if I would, it would only make me more insecure than ever. Imagine watching someone else handle your child their way, not yours. Imagine trying to make them do everything your way. Either way, a nightmare!

The reason I mention this is, there is news. According to a recent New York Times article, anybody who has a couple hundred clams can buy a device that can intercept those video signals from a distance of more than a quarter mile away. That applies to every kind of video surveillance in stores, schools, homes, restaurants - anywhere. It seems these devices are very popular. They are heavily marketed over the Internet, using "cheesecake" (the article used that word) to get people interested. No doubt, most of the people who buy them just want to play with the latest in electronic equipment. Most of them. I thought you ought to know, in case you didn’t see the article. It was pretty well-documented, by the way.

Now, as I see it, there is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the peeping tom is not likely to know just what house he is currently looking into. The bad news is, it could be yours. Your little children, being watched by - whom? According to the law professor quoted in the article, the telecommunications industry lobbied for laws against audio eavesdropping so that its customers would feel secure using telephones. That was way before there were any computers at all. No corresponding laws apply to video . . . . um . . . (what do you call visual eavesdropping?) Anyway, there are no laws to prevent anybody who wants to from getting an eyeful, anywhere, anytime. Hand-in-hand with that, video equipment that is sold to just people has no security safeguards at all. Too expensive.

By the way - you do know, don’t you, that cell-phone communications are not secure? Nobody may be listening, but then again, anybody might be listening. If you didn’t know that, you might want to ask around now, to make sure whether or not what I say is true. In the meantime, just in case I know what I’m talking about, don’t use a cell phone if you’re going to talk about anything confidential - such as your child’s medical history, or particulars of a lawsuit. Use a phone that plugs into a wall somewhere.

Well. Back to the subject. The good news about these interception devices may not be true for long. Every day (literally every day) somebody comes up with new stuff that can do what yesterday’s stuff couldn’t do. That means that pretty soon, there will be devices that can hone in on a particular house. Available at Good Guys or Radio Shack for not-much.

Now, I have always been against "nanny-cams". (Did I already say that?) I don’t think anybody can do a good job of interacting with other human beings when they know they’re not trusted. Before nanny-cams were invented and aggressively marketed, people managed to limp along without them. They hired nannies and governesses, and they trusted them. Their information sources were their observations of their children over time. If they were not happy with what they saw, they started looking for a new nanny or governess. It can be done, and unless you’re comfortable with not knowing who’s watching your children, or why they’re watching, you’ll have to do the same.