The Daily Vidette August 23, 2007
Students weigh in on new surveillance policy in U.S.
By Alex Lawson
The United States has implemented a new surveillance policy, which allows law enforcement, emergency response and border patrol agencies to use the nation's spy satellites to monitor our own territory.
The policy authorizes that satellites in low-Earth orbit, which are in the sky to monitor foreign targets, can be used to photograph locations in the U.S. as they pass by overhead.
Proponents of the new legislation on Capitol Hill insist that this is not a system for tracking Americans in their day-to-day lives and will primarily be used to monitor prospective natural disasters to plan escape routes and further monitor the nation's already heavily scrutinized borders.
As with any new security policy, there are those who do not fully trust that this is all it will be used for what it's billed as.
"To me, it's kind of doing the same thing the Patriot Act is doing, which is completely unconstitutional. We do have the right to privacy," Stefanie Pipis, a junior political science major, said.
Some, however, do not draw a distinction between this and the overly monitored culture most Americans inhabit on a day-to-day basis.
"I don't really have a problem with it as long as it stays in the public sector. If satellites track your movements when you're walking through a parking lot, is that really any different than the multitude of security cameras that are monitoring you at the exact moment?" Jon Kaminsky, history teacher at Prospect High School and ISU alumni, said.
Pipis doesn't see the connection there.
"There is a difference between a private store surveying their parking lot for security reasons and the government tracking what you're doing with satellites," Pipis said.
Another wrinkle in the issue is that some see the policy as useless and therefore unnecessary, as the resolution on spy satellites is not of a high enough quality to track specific individuals.
"It's not immediately apparent to me that satellites would tell me something I couldn't otherwise learn from an airplane," John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, told the New York Times.
An air of skepticism abounds among those who are unsure of the policy's aims and intentions.
"I don't really see what the purpose for it is. If it's not high resolution and the government is still spending money to use it, it seems like there's something else going on that they're not explaining," Stephanie Gradle, a junior political science major, said.
Kaminsky feels that citizens should only start to feel concerned if the surveillance occurred on a more personal basis.
"As long as it doesn't venture into the private sphere, I see it just as an extension of already existing security technology, it's just considerably more expansive. If they had the technology to view you inside your home going about your day to day lives, then we've got an issue," Kaminsky said.
© Copyright 2007, The Daily Vidette
