If you're among the roughly 20 remaining people in this country who have not appeared on television at some point during their lives, and you're just aching to rectify this situation, I may be able to help.
You'll need a laptop with wireless connectivity (or an extremely long Ethernet cable), but once you've got your hands on that, the rest is simple: Position yourself five to 10 yards from the Bryan Center entrance on the Plaza and log on to the Office of Student Activities and Facilities website. Voila! You should be seeing crisp digital footage of yourself, streaming out across the Internet via OSAF's webcam (or PlazaCam, to be proper).
Feel free to wave at the Internet.
Sure, it's a far cry from the glory of being a TV personality, but there are worse places to get your 15 seconds of fame than the PlazaCam. It's an alarmingly sharp-looking and uninterrupted live feed, nothing like the comically glitchy webcams I remember growing up with, where everything looked like it was taking place in a poorly filmed disco.
Besides, if you're not satisfied with being on one camera, by my count there are at least five others surrounding the Plaza: two above the entrance to the Bryan Center, two on the archway opening to the Main Quad and one at the bottom of the metal staircase leading to the back of Kilgo. Just by setting foot on the Plaza, you've become a star of closed-circuit television.
It's tough to get hard figures on exactly how many security cameras are installed on this campus, largely because the system is so decentralized. Cameras are overseen by the Duke University Police Department, Parking and Transportation Services and the Medical Center, among other departments. Still, what's acknowledged is that the number creeps steadily upward every year-and that the administration likes it that way.
DUPD has long been planning to revamp the current surveillance system, centralizing camera operations under one roof and the jurisdiction of one department. In addition, Dean of Residence Life and Housing Services Eddie Hull have been toying with the idea of installing cameras at the entrance of every residence hall for at least a couple years now, although so far the prohibitive cost of such a system (estimates of $12 million based on the experiences of similar schools) has precluded any action from taking place. Nonetheless, as recently as December Vice President for Campus Safety Aaron Graves mentioned that surveillance cameras were "great tool[s]" and that they could be used to fill in gaps where coverage by officers or other security personnel is sparse.
Currently, most cameras aren't actively monitored; instead their footage is usually only accessed if it's needed. Likewise, any expanded system would be mostly passive, although Graves does mention in a Chronicle report on the subject that certain "hot spots" would be actively watched, without naming the hot spots.
Really, it all sounds pretty innocuous, right?
Like most people's reaction to this kind of news, my answer is an uneasy "yeah, but...," a deep discomfort with the idea of being watched without great reasons to back it up. Electronic surveillance of one kind or another is so pervasive at this point in our society (witness the PlazaCam) that it almost seems like a moot point to object to it.
With an estimated 300,000 security cameras currently in use in the United States (according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center), any notions we once might have had about privacy in public or semi-public areas have pretty much been demolished, and only a few rabble-rousers seem very upset about it.
In Europe, surveillance by camera is even more common, especially as a traffic and law enforcement tool. So far, the dire warnings of 1984 fanatics have failed to materialize. Is there any real reason to oppose this trend?
Sure there is. For one, it's not particularly effective at improving safety. Studies conducted in the UK, possibly the most camera-happy place in the world, suggest that security cameras produce a short-term, minor dip in crime rates but have no long-term effects. On top of that, other studies both in the UK and in New York indicate that camera operators typically lose focus or stop paying attention entirely after 20 minutes and that nearly 10 percent of all cameras in New York City are being used for the operator's amusement, i.e. to spy on apartments across the street or follow attractive women.
Big Brother may be watching, but he's inept, inattentive and lecherous. Even Graves seems to acknowledge this, at least implicitly. In several of his statements about the camera issue he's made it clear that Duke doesn't have a serious problem with crime, that it's largely a question of perception and that adding security cameras would more than anything make students feel safer. The concrete benefits are far less clear.
A potential $12 million is way too much to pay for the illusion of safety. Besides, I don't think it's wrong to feel uneasy about being watched; I think it's the correct response. Privacy is important, no matter how much it gets degraded (or how much we give it away). A surveillance camera, ultimately, is a threat and a pretty blunt and ominous one at that. It means someone thinks I'm a potential suspect, a target that needs to be monitored and managed.
No thanks. I'm as vain as the next guy, but there are better ways to get on TV.
Brian Kindle is a Trinity senior. His column runs every Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.