The Downsides of "Deterrence"
Yesterday I wrote about how the Trump Administration is creating a 鈥淢odel Cities Initiative鈥 (MCI) grant initiative that would more accurately be called 鈥淣ightmare Cities.鈥 It seeks to impose an authoritarian and ideological approach to policing that is heavily based on surveillance, boyish conceptions of dominance and toughness, and the use of force.
I didn鈥檛 mention this yesterday but in the program鈥檚 grant language I detected a note I often hear in discussions of surveillance programs: the goal of 鈥渄eterrence.鈥 鈥淔unding awarded through MCI will emphasize common sense policing, including prioritizing deterrence,鈥 Trump鈥檚 Justice Department in its call for cities to 鈥渟upercharge鈥 law enforcement and expand police surveillance. [emphasis added]
If you pay attention to surveillance technology, 鈥渄eterrence鈥 is a word you hear a lot. Over and over again, proponents of new surveillance technologies promise their products will 鈥渄eter crime.鈥 Viewed narrowly, of course, deterrence is a good thing 鈥 we all want to stop crime. But when you hear that word used in connection with surveillance, it should set off alarm bells in your head.
In 2019, the Baltimore police decided to start flying an aircraft over the city equipped with giga-pixel cameras that can videotape the movements of all cars and pedestrians in a 32-square-mile area. The head of the company that performed the flights for the police that their goal was 鈥渄eterring crime in the community.鈥 When it comes to people tempted to commit crimes, another supporter declared, 鈥淚 want them to be worried that we鈥檙e watching. I want them to be worried that they never know when we鈥檙e overhead.鈥 Another proponent of aerial surveillance , 鈥淚f drones watch potential criminals, they deter dishonest behavior.鈥
This might all sound like a good thing until you pause to reflect that drones and surveillance aircraft don鈥檛 just watch criminals 鈥 they watch everybody. They don鈥檛 just make people thinking about committing a crime feel anxious about being watched 鈥 to make criminals feel that way you have to make everybody feel that way because you don鈥檛 know in advance who might commit a crime.
It鈥檚 a simple point, but the way boosters of surveillance talk, it seems as if this hasn鈥檛 occurred to them 鈥 and it should be pointed out every time they say it.
The same argument about deterrence is un-self-consciously made by peddlers of other technologies. Flock, the license plate surveillance company, against that its system helps 鈥渢o deter and solve crime,鈥 while a seller of touts 鈥渕obile physical deterrence.鈥
Sometimes law enforcement wants people to feel not just watched, but actively intimidated. Some police departments have used militarized equipment to and people exercising their rights, a tactic the profession calls a 鈥渟how of force.鈥 And the same logic applies. Whether or not such untargeted tactics deter wrongdoing by a few people, they chill dissent and darken and degrade people鈥檚 experience of exercising their rights 鈥 or, when used routinely, their quality of life overall. The Los Angeles Police Department, for example, loud, militaristic police helicopters over the city 鈥 lower-income, less white parts of the city 鈥 on 鈥渢he theory that would-be criminals tend to rethink their nefarious plans when there鈥檚 an airship hovering overhead,鈥 as the Los Angeles Times . Intimidation has certainly been a hallmark of the Trump invasions of federal agents into local communities.
In some specific contexts, of course, targeted deterrence can be a good thing. A security guard in a bank, for example, may help deter robbers without impinging on everybody else鈥檚 freedom in any important ways. People expect a certain amount of watchfulness in a bank. The same holds true in many other narrow circumstances.
But it鈥檚 not the same when the context is entire neighborhoods or other large swaths of public space 鈥 places where people live their lives. So when you hear someone say 鈥渙ur surveillance technology will deter crime by making criminals feel like they鈥檙e being watched,鈥 just remember what that means: everyone will feel like they鈥檙e being watched. In some limited contexts that might make sense but at a minimum a recognition of this simple fact needs to be part of every conversation and debate in which 鈥渄eterrence鈥 is used as an argument.