Audio Click on the sound icon to hear excerpts from Prof. Staples' interview Related topics  • More information on Prof. Staples' book  • KU News Resource Page: War on Terrorism Search KU News releases Subscribe now to receive KU News by email

Contact: Ranjit Arab, University Relations, (785) 864-8855.

Surveillance expert says national security and personal rights can co-exist

LAWRENCE -- With national security efforts reaching unprecedented levels in the wake of last month's terrorist attacks, many Americans are concerned that their civil liberties may be the first casualty in the war on terrorism.

However, a University of Kansas professor who specializes in understanding surveillance practices, said heightened security measures do not have to come at the expense of personal rights.

William Staples, KU professor of sociology and author of the book, "Everyday Surveillance: Vigilance and Visibility in Postmodern Life" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, 2000), said the fine line between national security and civil liberties can be balanced as long as proper safeguards and accountability are emphasized.

"My sense is that the best way to protect the line is to have an open and democratic discussion of the issues - that things not be done in back rooms in which decisions are made about security, and those types of surveillance practices get done by agencies without any oversight," Staples said.

As Tom Ridge prepares to step down as governor of Pennsylvania and assume his role as the first-ever U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, he would be wise to consult the expertise of citizen groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Privacy International and the Privacy Foundation, among others, Staples said.

"The principles in our constitution are there already that protect us and if we adhere to those principles, and security and surveillance techniques are designed in such a way to abide by that framework, then I think they can be constitutional and reasonable," he said.

The difficulty in determining what is constitutional and reasonable is perhaps best demonstrated in the controversy surrounding the wide range of proposed security measures, from racial profiling to requiring that every citizen carry a national identity card. While there are clear constitutional violations associated with racial profiling - or singling out one specific group simply due to ethnicity or religious affiliation - other practices such as the identity card or facial recognition software might be reasonable options since they require that everyone submit to the security measure, he said.

Still, he said such practices would be beneficial only if they are used in limited ways and strictly for public safety purposes, similar to X-ray machines at airports.

Staples' research has primarily focused on the increasing amount of surveillance conducted by the private sector. In his book, he asserts that recent surveillance efforts have had little in common with the "Big Brother" scenario spelled out in George Orwell's classic novel, "1984." Instead of a top-down surveillance from the government, citizens have been watched by a number of "Tiny Brothers" - from corporations that monitor employee Internet use to retailers that track consumer purchases.

Recent national security issues have shifted the concern back to state-sponsored surveillance, Staples said.

"It's not surprising to me that people are concerned about this - I think they very well should be. I think that one of the most dangerous times for civil liberties is during a time of crisis," he said. "It's so easy in the midst of what appears to be a devastating or threatening situation to abandon concerns for rights and embark on things we wouldn't necessarily otherwise."

Perhaps the most dangerous threat to personal liberties is the notion that all rights should be temporarily surrendered during this time of crisis, he said.

"I'm really uncomfortable with that kind of idea that 'this is a crisis so we need to surrender everything,'" Staples said. "Indeed, it is a crisis - it is a very, very dangerous situation we are in right now and there is reason to be concerned. However, at the same time, I don't think we need to go overboard with it. I don't think we need to surrender much of anything."

As the nation struggles to prevent future attacks while simultaneously ensuring that our basic individual rights are not compromised, Staples said the need for heightened surveillance measures - though rather tricky - was also understandable.

"It's not an evil agenda, it's trying to deal with a problem, but unfortunately when we rush into trying to solve a problem, we often end up tripping over ourselves," he said.