2003 casella, the false allure of security technologies

8/19/2019 2003 Casella, The False Allure of Security Technologies

1/13


2/13

The False Allure of

Security

Technologies

Ronnie

Casella

THE

SECURITY NDUSTRY

RADE

MAGAZINE,

MERICANCHOOL

AND

NIVERSITY,

EGAN

an article about school safetywith thefollowing real-life scenario (Kennedy,

2001):

As

students

were

enjoying

recess

on

the

playground

in the

Piano

Independent

School

District,

Texas,

a

suspicious

man

sitting

n

a

parked

Cadillac tried

to

lure

some

of

the

children

over

to

the

car.

When the

teacher

on

duty

saw

what

was

happening

and

began

to

approach

the

car,

the

man

drove

off.

That

might

have

been

the end

of the

incident,

except

that he

teacher

was

carrying

a

two-way

radio.

She

called

back

to

the school

office,

and

someone

immediately

called 911.

A few

minutes

later,

the

man was in

custody.

He

was

caught

before

he

got

out

of

the

neighborhood,

says

Ken

Bangs,

director of

police,

security,

and

student

safety

for

the iano

district.

Did

we

dodge

a

bullet?

I believe

that

we

did.

For

Bangs,

it

was

more

proof

that the

district's

increasing

use

of

radios

was

paying

dividends

in

safer

campuses,

and

more

secure

students

and

staff.

Having

these

radios

makes

a

ton

of

difference,

says

Bangs.

Like many articles thatappear inAmerican School and University, Security

Technology

and

Design,

SecurityManagement,

and other

trade

magazines

of the

security

industry,

the

use

of

technology

is described

as a

boon

for school

safety,

and

the

newest

advances

and

improvements

in

technology

are

regularly

featured

in articles and

represented

in

advertisements

that

appear

in

the

magazines.

In

addition

to

radios,

these

technologies

include metal

detectors,

scanners,

close

circuit

televisions

(CCTVs),

iris

recognition

systems,

and

other

forms

of

surveil

Ronnie

Casella

(e-mail:

[email protected])

is assistant

professor

of educational

foundations

and

secondary

education

at

Central Connecticut

State

University

(New

Britain,

CT

06050).

He

is the author

of Being Down : Challenging Violence inUrban Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2001)

and

At Zero

Tolerance:

Punishment,

Prevention,

and

School Violence

(New

York:

Peter

Lang

Publishing,

2001).

82

Social

Justice

Vol.

30,

No. 3

(2003)

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

The

False Allure

of

Security Technologies

83

lance,

detection,

access

control,

and

biometric

equipment.

Many

of these items

depend

on

technologies

(such

as

digitalized

networks and

lasers)

that

were

developed by military

and

security industry

scientists

beginning

in

the

1940s

primarily

for

police

and

national

security

purposes

during

theCold

War.

Today,

the

prevalence

in

high

schools ofwhat

De vine

(1996)

called

techno-security

is

an

example

of how these

developments

in

technology

have altered

our

public

spaces,

institutions,

nd

homes.

In

the

case

of

schools,

the

use

of

techno-security

epitomizes

fear

of violence

as

well

as

fear of

legal liability

that

onvinces school

district

administrators that

security technology

is

worth

the

expenditures.

How?

ever, it lso epitomizes the nroads thatsecuritybusinesses have made inthepublic

school market. Peter

Blouvelt,

the executive director of

theNational Alliance for

Safe

Schools,

remarked about

security

vendors: Schools

have

become

a

major

market

for these

guys.

The

proliferation

of

security

equipment

for

schools

has

taken off

(cited

in

Light,

2002:

3).

Schools

are

just

one

example

of

people's

increased

use

and

acceptance

of

security technologies

in

theUnited States.

Government

buildings,

stores,

offices,

workplaces,

recreation

areas,

streets,

and homes

have

also

been

outfitted

with

CCTVs,

biometric

equipment,

scanners,

detectors,

not

to

mention

alarms, locks,

and

intercoms.

At

a

security

industry

onference

I

attended

as

part

of the

research

for thisarticle, a spokesperson fora securitycorporation toldconference partici?

pants

that,

ccording

to

research,

inNew

York

City

an

individual

was

likely

to

be

caught

on a

security

camera

about

seven

times

each

day

without

knowing

it;

in

London,

thenumber

was

double that.

Although

the

use

of

security

technologies

is

often

explained

as

a

need

during

times

of

wanton

violence and

crime,

the

allure

of

technology

and

humans'

fascination

with

gadgets

and

equipment

partly

explain

why security

technology

is

rapidly becoming

a

fixture

in

even

themost

idyllic

areas.

In

the

case

of

schools,

though

proponents

of

technologies

warn

against

their

misuse,

they

till believe that

CTVs,

scanners,

and other

advanced

technologies

are

essential

for

any

overall

school

safety plan

(Townley

and

Martinez, 1995;

Kosar and Ahmed, 2000; Trump, 1999; Fickes, 2000). Moreover, corporate

incentives

and federal

support

have

made

it

possible

for

low-budget

institutions

and

individuals

to

invest

in

security.

The

mass

installation

of

security

technologies

is

one

aspect

of what

Lyon

(1994)

referred

to

as

a

surveillance

society,

whereby

security

items

are

at

once

ubiquitous

and

invisible.

People

accept

them

in

public

and

private

places

and

often

acquiesce

to

the

greater

restrictions

on

their ivil

rights

nd

privacy

that

nsue

due

to

their

uses

(see

also

Beger,

2002;

Casella,

2003).

Postman

(1992)

stated

that

n

such

a

society,

which

he

described

as a

technopoly,

individuals

find it

almost

impossible

to

think

utside

paradigms

devoted

to

scientism,

objectivity,

and

order.

Critics

of

technology

do

not

dismiss

some

key

aspects

(e.g.,

extending

the

lifespan

of

individuals

and

providing

comfort),

but

they

re

skeptical

of the

promises

made

in the

name

of

technology

and its

unrestrained

use

in

society.




4/13

84

Casella

Investing

in

Technology

In

using

public

schools

as a case

study

tobetter

understand the

use

of

security

technologies

in

U.S.

society,

one

of

the first

aspects

one

should consider

is their

cost.

These

costs

include the

installation, maintenance,

and

upgrading

of the

security

technology,

and

the

hiring

of

personnel

to

oversee

it.Costs

are

difficult

to

calculate

partly

because

school

district

accountants

often

combine

figures

pertaining

to

technology

with

other

safetyexpenditures.

For

example,

the

Chicago

public

school

system

spent

about

$35

million

during

the 2000-2001 school

year

on

security,

but

this

included

money

earmarked for

technology

and

tech-support,

aswell as

police

officers,

security guards,

and violence

prevention

and character

education

programs.

Moreover,

the

long-term

osts

of

upgrading

andmaintenance

are

also

difficult

to

ascertain because

these numbers

are

not

kept

as

separate

items.

The issue

of

cost

ismuddled further ecause

securityprofessionals

claim that

schools

and other

sites

actually

save

money

by

investing

in

technology

and

allege

they

can

provide proof

through simple

math calculations.

During

the

1999-2000

school

year,

a

Connecticut

high

school

acquired

a

highly sophisticated

CCTV

and

motion detector

system,

which

was

reported

in the

city

newspaper

and

featured

in

two

security

trade

magazines

(Casella,

2001).

The

CCTV

system

included

63

cameras,

47

of

which

were

located outside

the

school.

Almost

half of

all

the

cameras

had

pan-tilt-zoom capabilities capable

of

reading

a

license

plate

number

from

cross

the

parking

lot.

The

system

was

also

networked

to

laptop

computers

in

two

police

cruisers

and the

police department,

who could control

it

through

remote

control. The CCTV

andmotion detector

system

cost

the school

$300,000.

However,

an

article

in

a

trade

magazine

claimed the

expenditure

is

justified

because the school would

save

$200,000

a

year

by

detecting

vandalism

before it

occurs

(Sorrentino,

2002).

It

was

not

clear

in

the

article how the

author

arrived

at

this

conclusion,

and

none

of

the

claims made

by

security

officials

regarding

the

possibility

of

saving

money

could be

verified.

Security corporations promote theirproducts throughdonations and the free

installation

of

security equipment

in

schools

and in

numerous

other

sites,

includ?

ing

offices,

restaurant

chains,

and

recreation

areas.

Vanguard

of

Massachusetts

offers free

equipment

and

installation of

technology

that

would

ordinarily

cost

$40,000

to

$300,000,

depending

on

features.

WorldNet

Technologies

in

Seattle

and AvalonRF

in

San

Diego

offer free installation

of

their

product

WeaponScan

80?,

an

advanced

metal

(and

plastic)

detector

that

was

originally

developed by

the

Navy during

theCold

War

to

track oviet submarines

(Light,

2002).

The

most

important

enefit

for

corporations

from these donations

and

pro

bono

work

is the

profit

they

receive

from

the

monthly

payments

for

upgrading

and

maintaining

the

equipment. Corporations also benefit from contractual clauses that llow themto

feature

the

recipient

of

the

equipment

in their

promotional

materials

and ads

in

trade

magazines. WebEyeAlert

includes

in its ads

news

articles

from

the

Boston




5/13

The

False Allure

of Security

Technologies

85

Business

Journal

and

the

Derry

News

of

New

Hampshire

on

the schools

that

have

received

its

web-CCTV

monitoring

system.

This

technology

allows

police

offic?

ers

to

monitor

students

through

CCTVs, modems,

computers,

and

Internet

networks.

An

analysis

of the ads allows

one

to

understand their

ower

in

enticing

school

officials

and others

to

invest

in

technologies.

The

WebEyeAlert pamphlet depicts

various

security

markets

and

highlights

the fact that

security technologies

are

being

introduced

into almost

all

public

and

private

places,

including

schools,

homes,

transportation

stations,

hospitals,

cafeterias,

and

outdoor

areas.

The

company also markets tomunicipal buildings, banks, malls, prisons, stores, and

airports.

At

the

center

of

the

pamphlet

is

the

picture

of

a

school

and

a

school bus.

Another

picture depicts

a

young

couple

proudly

standing

outside

their

home;

young,

upwardly

mobile,

good-looking

professionals, they

will

probably

have

children and thereforehave

concerns

about

school

safety,

a

connection

that

is

made

visually by

the

intersectionof

their

image

with

that

f the

school.

A

picture

of

a

hospital

emergency

entrance

and ambulance

also

intersects

with

the

school

image,

again drornming

up

concerns

about

safety

for oneself and one's

family.

Visually connecting

the

image

of

the school

to

that

of

the

police

officer

in his

cruiser

is

a

white bubble.

The

officer

shown

is

gaining

visual

access

through

the

Internet to the real-time video surveillance cameras in the school. This ad

encapsulates

the

security

industry's widespread

efforts

to

convince

individuals

and

institutions

f

the

alleged

wisdom of

investing

in

security

devices.

The Role of the Federal Government

As

noted,

security corporations

often donate

security

equipment

and

its

installation

in schools. Where does

all the

money

come

from

to

maintain

and

upgrade

(and

on

occasions

purchase)

this

equipment

given

schools'

budgetary

deficits?

The

answer

lies

largely

in the

financial

support

offered

by

the

federal

government

for

the

research and

commercialization

of

security technologies.

Beginning

in

2003,

schools

were

identified

as

potential

sites

for terrorist

ttacks

and

the

newly

created

U.S.

Department

of

Homeland

Security

made

funds

available

to

schools

to

purchase

security technology.

This

department

appropri?

ated

over

$350

million

for,

among

other

things,hiring high

school

police

officers

and

buying

security

equipment

through

ts ublic

Safety

and

Community

Policing

Grants.

Other

departments

that

offer funds

for similar

goals

include

the

U.S.

Department

of

the

Treasury

(through

itsSafe Schools

Initiative,

which also funds

research conducted

by

the

.S.

Secret

Service),

the .S.

Department

of

Education

(through

its

Emergency Response

and

Crisis

Management

Grant

Program

and

its

Safe andDrug-Free Schools andCommunities Act), and theU.S. Department of

Justice.

Schools

are

not

the

only

ones

to

receive

generous

support.

In

2001,

all

taxpayers

began

to

benefit

from

a new

tax

code

related

to

security.

The

Securing

America

Investment

Act

of2001

(HR

2970),

which

amended

the

nternal

Revenue




6/13

86 Casella

Code of

1986,

allows

security

devices

in

buildings

and

private

homes

to

be

considered

an

expense

that is

not

chargeable

to

capital

accounts;

hence,

security

technology

became

a

tax

write-off.

Additionally,

the No

Child Left Behind

law,

passed by

President

George

W.

Bush in

2002,

provided funding

for the School

Security

Technology

Center

(SSTC)

at

Sandia

National Laboratories. Located

in

Albuquerque,

New

Mexico,

Sandia

employs

more

than

8,000 scientists,

engineers,

mathematicians,

techni?

cians,

and

support

personnel;

the

laboratory

was

established in

1941

by

theU.S.

Department

of

Energy

to

support

its

nuclear

weapons

program.

SSTC

distributes

information bout school securityand trains school employees tochoose and use

the

right technology

for their schools.

In

1999,

Mary

Green,

an

SSTC

employee,

published

The

Appropriate

and

Effective

Use

of

Security

Technologies

in

U.S.

Schools

through

the

U.S.

Department

of

Justice.

It is considered

one

of

the

most

comprehensive publications

on

the

subject.

SSTC is also

involved

in several

security

initiatives,

including

work

with

Albuquerque public

schools

to

imple?

ment

a

system

that

uses

hand

geometry

to

identify

parents

and

guardians

of

children

(see

Figure

1).

When

parents

or

guardians

register

their

hildren,

they

re

assigned

a

personal

identification

number

(PIN)

and

are

asked

to

place

theirhand

on a

pad

that

uses

biometric

technology

to

record

theirhand features.

Each time

someone

picks

up

a child at

school,

he or she enters thePIN and

places

a hand on

the

pad.

If

the

PIN and

thehand

geometry

match the nformation

n

the

system,

the

person

is allowed

to

take the child

(Kennedy,

2001).

Exhibit

.4.

tltMUaUd

er*

re vend

ypa*

f omvcric

atontlOm

iat

an

cmed

for

ntry

ontrol

rllb

hi&

oaOdenccf

ccorscy.

Figure

1:

From

Mary

Green

(1999:

111;

Exhibit 4.4

visual).

Demonstrating

the

uses

of

iris

scanning,

a

palm

reader,

and

a

fingerprint

reader. Individuals

enter

a

PIN and

gain

access

to

the

school if the

biometric

reading

matches stored information

in

a

security

database.




7/13

The False Allure

of Security Technologies

87

Overseeing

Youth and

Others

The

young

man

in

Figure

2

has

long

hair

and

wears

jeans

and sneakers

(and

boots in the

bottom

right

orner

image).

His hair

length

and

clothing

contrastwith

the

guard's

shorthair

and

uniform.The

guard

is the

overseer

and the

youth

is the

suspect.

The

overseers,

however,

are

also the

suspects

for

higher

level

of

security

professional (Lyon,

1994).

Those who

use

security

equipment

on

others also

have

it trained

on

themselves.

An

interesting

characteristic

of the

ads

is

that the

individuals

being

searched

or

having

their

body

parts

scanned

are

depicted

as

content and sometimes happy (thewoman inFigure 1 is smiling).A 2002 Garrett

Metal

Detectors

ad shows

a

young,

white,

handsome

man

smiling broadly

while

a

security

rofessional

searches

him

using

the

top-of-the-line

arrett

SuperScanner.

In

a

2001 Garrett

ad,

another

person

in

tattered

jeans

and sneakers is

pictured

being

searched

by

someone

holding

a

metal detector.

A

sturdy

rm

entering

the

frame

is

holding

the

SuperWand

and

is

examining

the

fringed

cuffsof

the

person's

jeans,

shown

only

from theknees down. The advertisement

claims that the

SuperWand

is

very easy

and

fun

to

use.

Exhibit

.10.Thia o

an

unmpte

f

procedure*

or

using

hand eld

metal etector hat

as

at

least

10-ineh

one

Figure

2:

From

Mary

Green

(1999:

88;

Exhibit 3.10

visual).

The illustration

instructs

school

guards

on

how to

use

a

handheld metal detector

to

search students.




8/13

88

Casella

The

federal

government's

role in

accelerating

the

use

of

security

devices

in

U.S.

society

is

demonstrated

by

the

tax

write-off for

purchases

of

security

devices,

formation of

the

Department

of

Homeland

Security,

safe school

grants, support

of

the

Sandia National

Laboratories,

publications

that

promote

advanced

security

technologies,

and

demonstrations of biometric

security options

for

schools.

Beyond

that,

ecurity corporations

and the

federal

government present

a

model

of

desirable behavior

through

the

complacent,

even

pleased, people

depicted

in

the

figures.

Such

ads

ultimately

seek

to

persuade

individuals

that

they

should

allow

themselves

to

be

subject

to

routine

searches,

have

their bodies

measured

and

touched by lasers and scanners, and have information about them stored in

databases

?

information

that

can

then

be

shared with

a

greater

range

of federal

organizations

and

police

departments

thanks

to

theUSA

Patriot

Act of

2001.

Welcoming


intoOne's

Life

Beyond

the

federal

support

and

corporate

benefits

and incentives

stands

the

allure of

technology

and

an

almost

myth-making quality

to

induce

individuals

to

embrace

the

surveillance

society

in

which

they

ive.

Corporate

advertisers

play

on

people's

fears

to

promote

technology

as

the

way

of the

future

nd

its

increasing

use

as

inevitable:

Take

a

closer

look

at

the

LG Iris ccess

3000

?

it's

the

look

of

things

to

come,

claimed

a

2002

advertisement

by

LG

Electronics

U.S.A.,

Inc.,

for

an

iris identification

system.

The

president

of Evolution

Software, Inc.,

explained

at

a

2001 conference

that

wearable

security

computer

systems

would

have

technology

integrated

in

everyday

life. She

demonstrated

a

wearable

computer

equipped

with

voice

recognition technology:

a

monocle

strapped

to

her head

(the

computer

screen),

a

little

pouch

on

her

hip

(the

computer),

and

a

micro-keyboard

attached

to

one

hand;

a

hidden

camera on

her

shoulder

recorded her

surroundings

and

could be

projected

on

the

monocle

computer

screen.

Then

she

explained

that

the

armed forces

were

interested in

the

adoption

of the

technology

formotion

trackingsystems and 3D augmented systems. Though theequipmentmakes one

look

part

robot,

the

integration

of

technology

with

everyday

life

is

a

popular

security industry

item,

a

staple

of

security

advertisements,

and

is

commonly

alluded

to

by

school

security

dealers

when

they xplain

the

integration,

natural

fit,

or

harmony

between

security

technology

and

humans.

These

are

worrisome

claims

considering

that

technology

has

demonstrated

the

success

of

science,

but

not

necessarily

the

success

of

society.

Although

the

sophistication

of

technology

has

increased,

society

has

not

always

benefited

(Collingridge,

1980;

Weisberg,

2000).

In

the

philosophy

and

sociology

of technol?

ogy,

there is

much

agreement

about what

is

sometimes

referred

to

as

the

paradox

of technology (Durbin, 1989; Scarbrough and Corbett, 1992) or what Tenner

called

the

revenge

of

unintended

consequences

(1996).

Examples

of

this

paradox

include

references

to

technology's

impact

on

the

environment, work,

quality

of

life,

and

closeness

to

nature: the

way

technology

makes

life

more




9/13

The False Allure

of


89

leisurely

and

busier

at

the

same

time;

the

way

technology

helps

to

save

lives but

also

causes

deaths

and introduces

new

ways

of

dying.

Technology

has

enabled

individuals

to

produce

enough

food

to

feed

the

world,

yet

hunger persists;

the

tom

was

split,

yet

war

became

more

dangerous.

Partly

because of the

inability

of

technology

to

live

up

to

the

promises

of those

who

develop

and sell

it,

the

production

of

security equipment

from

manufac?

turer,

istributor, dealer,

and end-user

relies

not

only

on

proclamations

about

protective qualities,

but

also

on

scientism,

images

of

power

and

omniscience,

and

claims about cost-effectiveness

and

simplicity

of

use.

While

describing

safety

and

how it sachieved, ads also describe technology design and efficiency. Technolo?

gies

to

manage

people,

openings,

and

assets.

A

flexible

design,

seamless

integra?

tion

capabilities,

and state-of-the-art

technology

make

InterAccess

an

essential

solution

for

any

organization,

claimed

a

2002 brochure

from

IR

Interflex,

of

Forestville,

Connecticut,

for

access

control

equipment

for

offices,

government

buildings,

and

schools.

A

CEIA

USA, Ltd.,

2002

single-page

brochure

stated:

CEIA,

the

world's

leading

manufacturer

ofMetal

Detectors,

presents

the

Classic.

This walk

through

etal

Detector is

engineered

and

designed

to

meet

the

specific

needs of

public

facilities such

as:

schools,

hotels,

amusement parks, and city halls. The Classic provides the required

security

with

a

high

level of

operating

efficiency.

The

leading

edge

of

technology

features

a

high

flow

rate

of

people

through

the

gate

with

minimal alarms.

Figure

3:

Sony

Electronics,

Inc.,

Surveillance

and

E-Monitoring Systems

General

Catalog

2002

2003,

front

cover.

Sleek,

functional,

futuristic

security

gear.




10/13

90

Casella

Beyond

such

descriptions,

security

products

tend

visually

to

be silver

and

black,

sleek-looking,

futuristic,

urable,

and

rugged

(see

Figure

3

for

an

example

of

Sony security systems). They

are

designed

to

be

aesthetically appealing,

especially

to

men.

This

style

of

design

is

what

Pacey

(1999:

82)

referred

to

as a

combat-ready

look

from

military

equipment

to

symbolize

no-nonsense

func?

tional

rigor

in his

description

of home

electronics

gear

marketed

to

men

(with

their

black

matte

finishes,

digital displays,

and

push-button

controls).

A

tantalizing

effect exerted

by security

devices is related

to

the

presumed

acceptance

by

individuals of science

and

technology

(see

Figure

4).

The

hand

in

thepalm reader seems perfectlyathome, especially when juxtaposed to thehand

entering

the

technological

age

(from

a

muted

color

at

thewrist

and lower

palm

to

thebrilliant

Technicolor

stripes

at

the

fingers).

The dawn

of classical

science

is

represented

in

the

drawing

of

the

human

body,

which

is surrounded

by

scientific

jargon

that is

common

enough

to

be

understood,

but

esoteric

enough

to

sound

scientific,

including

the

mention

of

DNA, iris,

and

keyboard

stroke.

Figure

4: TR

Interflex,

subsidiary

of

IR

Ingersoll

Rand,

advertisement

booklet, 2002,

p.

16. The

hand

in the bottom left

corner

enters

the

technological

age,

as

does

the hand

on

the

palm

reader. Classical

science

(represented

by

the

image

at

top)

enters

the future

of

biometrics,*'

which

includes

signature,

keystroke,

iris,

DNA,

and retina

recognition

systems.

Companies

use

this

melding

of

humanity

and techno-science

to

convince

individuals

to

submit

to

devices and

to

accept

a

world

inwhich

surveillance

is

common. When

young

people

are asked to stand

spread-legged

at a school

entrance

or

workers

are

asked

to

have

their hand

measurement taken

before

entering

an

office,

the interaction

between

the

overseer

and

the

suspect depends

on

the

compliance

of

the

suspect.

Compliance

is

achieved

through

the

imposition




11/13

The False Allure

of Security

Technologies

91

of

a

codified

authority

(the presence

of

rules,

policies,

and

laws),

through

actual

punishment

of

transgressors,

and

by persuading

individuals

thatwhat is

being

asked of

them is

a

natural

part

of

life.

In

past

generations, imagine

the

shock

expressed by

individuals

who,

for

the

first

time,

had

to

punch

in

at

work

using

a

time

clock.

Yet,

it

has become

a

natural

part

of

workplaces

and the

recording

of

one's time in

and

time

out

is

expected.

For

workplace

managers

using

security

technologies,

its

use

is

usually

for

financial

gain

and

expediency,

while

for

the

federal

government,

the

aim is

information

gathering;

for the individual

who

submits

to

it,

it

is

to

prove

ones

innocence without

having

done

anything

wrong.

Police forces in theU.S. aremaking greateruse of security technologies. For

example,

theNew York

City

Police

Department

is

considering putting

facial

recognition technology

in the

3,000

CCTVs

already

mounted

in

public

housing

units. This will

allow

police

officials

to

record

the facial features

of

public

housing

occupants

and

to

run

their

features

through

various crime

analysis

databases.

The

cameras

and facial

recognition

technology

will thus

be used

on

poor

and

mostly

nonwhite

people.

New

Jersey

police

cruisers

have been outfitted

with

cameras

to

document traffic

tops

along

theNew

Jersey

Turnpike.

Cameras

were

installed

in

response

to

accusations

of

police

brutality,

but

they

also

document who

is

riding

the

highways,

at

what

time,

and

on

what

day.

Are

people

aware theyare being captured on film several times each day, that information

about them is

increasingly

run

through

databases

and

kept

on

record,

or

that this

information s shared

with

individuals

they

o

not know

and

over

whom

they

have

no

control?

As

individuals

accept

greater

surveillance,

close themselves

within

gated

communities,

and

support

institutionsthat ommission

security companies

to

watch

over

employees, they

end

up

doing exactly

what the

government

and

security companies

want

them

to

do.

Putting

p

(with)

echnology

Is

the extensive

use

of

security

technology

a

sensible

response

to

safety

problems

in

society,

or

is it

based

on

totalitarianism

and

irrational

fear?

Many

would claim that

t

s

a

logical

reaction

to

unprecedented

violence

inU.S.

society,

including

random

murders,

school

shootings

and

massacres,

and

terrorist

nd

suicide bomber

attacks.

However,

two

aspects

of

security

technology

discussed

in

this

essay

should

cause us

to

pause

and consider

whether

we

should

accept

unimpeded

installation

of

security equipment

in

our

society.

The first as

to

do

with

federal

government

support

of

security technologies.

At

a

time

when

the

federal

government

has

chosen

to

limitfunds

to

states,

cut

spending,

and

relinquish

itsduties

in

providing

a

safety

net

for the

poor

and

disenfranchised,

it finds untold

sums

ofmoney and provides

tax

breaks for individuals who

wish

to

purchase

security equipment.

The second

aspect

has

to

do with

the

burgeoning

business

of

security

and

the lucrative

market

that ithas

found

in

nearly

every

institution

nd

public

space

in

modern

life. The

power

of the

security industry

has become




12/13

92

Casella

concentrated

in

what Mills

(1956)

referred

to

as

a

power

elite,

a

group

comprised

of

politicians, military

officers,

and

corporate

bosses.

The intentions

of

this

power

elite

are

only

partly

known. At

some

level,

politicians

who

support

the

installation

of

securityequipment

are

concerned about

thewelfare

of

individuals;

yet,

they

are

also interested

in information

gathering

and

in

testing

and

using

new

products

under

development.

Federal

agencies

may

be

using

schools

to test

security equipment

for later

use

by

the

military,

for

domestic

policing

and

crowd

control,

or

for

information-gathering

on

young

people,

public

housing

occupants,

those

driving

the

highways,

individuals

who

dress a certainway, or thosewho do not abide by all directives issued by the

political

establishment.

Who is

more

paranoid:

the

person

who

sees

the

need

for

all this

security

technology

or

the

one

who

sees

it

as

a

form of

totalitarianism?

Regardless

of

how

one answers

these

questions,

everyone

should

explore

the

purposes

behind

this

security buildup

and refuse

to

accept

simple

answers

about

safety

nd

protection

when there

s little vidence

that

security

technology

actually

makes

us

safer.

The

longer

a

technology

is

used,

the

more

entrenched

in life

it ecomes.

When

technologies

are

new,

or are

used

in

newer

ways

(such

as

the

application

of

satellite

technology

to cellular

phones),

their

uses

are

easier

to

modify

and

their

conse?

quences easier to control.The use of security technology inpublic places in the

form

of

biometrics,

detectors,

surveillance

equipment,

and

advanced

forms of

access

control

are

relatively

recent

developments.

If

we

wish

to

question

the

unintended

consequences

of

these

developments,

now

is

the

time

to

do

so.

Too

little

s

known about the

consequences

of

the

uncontrolled

use

of these

technolo?

gies,

yet

most

policymakers

support

them due

to

their allure

and

short-term

promises

of

safety.

If

society

becomes

safer,

if

it

becomes

more

difficult

to

smuggle

weapons

into

schools,

or

if violence

decreases,

advocates

of these

technologies

will claim that these

are

their

intended

consequences.

However,

if

public

and

private

institutions

begin

to

resemble

prisons,

if

new

generations

begin

to

accept

unmitigated

surveillance as a natural

part

of

life,

if

people's

civil

rights

become

gradually

revoked,

or

if

people

lose

opportunities

to

develop

human

relationships,

such

consequences

must

be viewed

as

intended

as

well.

REFERENCES

Beger,

Randall

2002

Expansion

of

Police

Power in

Public

Schools and the

Vanishing Rights

of

Students.

Social

Justice

29,1-2:

119-130.

Casella, Ronnie

2003

Security, Schooling,

and

the

Consumer's

Choice

to

Segregate.

The Urban

Review

35,2:

129-148.

2001

At

Zero Tolerance:

Punishment, Prevention,

and

School

Violence.

New

York:

Peter

Lang

Publishing.




13/13

The False Allure

of Security Technologies

93

Col?ngridge,

David

1980

Devine,

John

1996

Durbin,

Paul

1989

Fickes,

Michael

2000

Green,

Mary

1999

The Social Control

of

Technology.

New

York:

St.

Martin's

Press.

Maximum

Security:

The

Culture

of

Violence

in

Inner-City

Schools.

Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press.

Philosophy

of Technology.

Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Making

theGrade with School

Security.

School

Planning

and

Management

39,4:3941.

The

Appropriate

and

Effective

Use

of

Security

Technologies

in

U.S. Schools:

A

Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies. National Institute of

Justice

Research

Report.

Washington,

D.C.: U.S.

Department

of Justice.

Kennedy,

Mike

2001

Security; Making

Contact.

American

School and

University

(February

1):

1

3.

Kosar,

John

and

Faruq

Ahmed

2000

Building

Security

into

Schools.

School Administrator

57,2:

2426.

Light,

Michelle

2002

Scoop from

the

Loop.

E-mail bulletin

from theChildren

and

Family

Justice

Center,

Northwestern

University Legal

Clinic,

[email protected].

Lyon,

David

1994

The Electronic

Eye:

The

Rise

of

Surveillance

Society.

Minneapolis:

University

of

Minnesota

Press.

Mills, C. Wright

1956

The

Power Elite. New

York: Oxford

University

Press.

Paeey,

Arnold

1999

Meaning

in

Technology.

Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Postman,

Neil

1992

Technopoly:

The

Surrender

of

Culture

to

Technology.

New

York:

Vintage

Books.

Scarbrough,

Harry

and

J.

Martin Corbett

1992

Technology

and

Organization:

Power,

Meaning,

and

Design.

New

York:

Routledge.

Sorrentino,

Dominic

2002

A

Whole

New

Paradigm:

Changes

in

Technology

Have Altered the

Face

of

School

Security.

American School

and

University

75:

4-6.

Tenner, Edward

1996

Why

Things

Bite

Back:

Technology

and the

Revenge

of

Unintended

Conse?

quences.

New

York:

Alfred

Knopf.

Townley,

Arthur and

Kenneth

Martinez

1995

Using Technology

toCreate

Safer

Schools.

NASSP

Bulletin

79,568:

6168.

Trump,

Kenneth

1999

Scared

or

Prepared:

Reducing

Risks

with School

Security

Assessments.

The

High

School

Magazine

6: 1823.'

Wagman,

Jake

2002

District Will

Use

Eye

Scanning.

The

Philadelphia

Inquirer

(October

24).

Retrieved June

20,

2003

at

www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/

4355449.htm.

Weisberg,

Dan

2000 Scalable Hype: Old Persuasions forNew Technology.

Robin

Anderson

and

Lance

Strate

(eds.),

Critical

Studies

inMedia

Commercialism.

Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press: 186-200.

2003 casella, the false allure of security technologies

Documents