LETTER FROM THE EDITOR 7/31/07
You may have heard about the latest hit and run; the latest cyclist to be tossed into the air by a car and left for dead as the driver hit the gas and drove away.
It happened at Affleck Park; a family campground where the speed limit is 15 miles an hour. The 23-year-old was thrown onto the hood and windshield of the an older, reddish Chevy Lumina while his parents watched in horror.
It mirrors another hit and run on the Jordan River Parkway, that bucolic path where motorized traffic is strictly forbidden, where no car should have been. A speeding black SUV came around a corner on the narrow path and hit Ross Jarrett head on. Someone found the badly injured man, and called for help. (an aside: police impounded a suspect vehicle three days afterwards. That was two weeks ago, but up to now there has been no follow-up of the story by any of the local newspapers or TV stations. Hello? Where's the reporters?)
The most heinous hit and run happened six weeks ago. Marty Kasteler was deliberately run down by the driver of an older model white van, after Kasteler slapped the van to let the backing-up driver know he and his wife were behind him. The driver quickly turned the van around and drove it into Kasteler, dragging him until he finally dropped from the van's front grill onto the street.
On July 30, a news story broke that seems to have nothing to do with the three hit and run cases: All public school students in Cache County wanting to join an extracurricular activity this year will be drug tested.
But the Cache County students share a deep connection with the hit and run victims: they illustrate what may turn be the biggest issue of our decade: what is the proper role of surveillance in a free society? Where should surveillance end?
Every major intersection throughout the Wasatch already has cameras which tape everyone. Had there been a camera at the Affleck Campground, the driver who hit Dallon Loertscher would have been caught. A camera could have also shown the drivers who plowed into Jarrett and Kasteler and perhaps led to the capture of those culprits.
But do we want government eyes on every street and path, watching our every move?
Which brings me to the Cache County students. It is true that performance enhancing and recreational drugs are illegal, and drug testing will uncover most who use them. But should public schools be allowed to perform surveillance on a student's urine and blood? Will a parent have a right to object?
Students who test positive will be banned from their chosen club or team; even suspended from school. Tests will be done before participation is allowed, with random tests throughout the school year. Which parent will bring the first court case over a claimed false positive? How many court cases will taxpayers pay for? The most important question: If public schools are given this type of authority, where will it stop? The district says it won't turn names over to police. That may be true now. Will it always be true?
Which brings me back to the hit and run crimes against cyclists.
Yes, cyclists would be safer if there were cameras everywhere. After some headlines about arrests, drivers would realize they might be caught if they drove away after a hit. Those who worry about being caught will stop.
And therein is the problem with surveillance. Those who are worried about being caught will not do drugs. Those who are worried about being caught will not drive away from the cyclist they creamed.
Those who are not worried, either because they can beat drug testing or their license plates can't be traced---those people won't care. Surveillance is a solution based on fear. It does nothing to change the consciousness or ethics of those under surveillance. Fear is an easy way to get people to do what you want. But it does not result in change. The monsters among us will remain monsters. The sheep among us will stay docile.
So Americans must ask questions as our right to privacy continues to erode. We have already given tacit permission to allow government to spy on our bank accounts, our telephone conversations and who we call, our snail mail, our email and what we look up on the web. But is spying on our kid's urine okay? Is it acceptable to watch us with a camera as we ride down a country lane? How about in our back yards? In our homes?
It's an issue we should begin discussing now, while we are still a free society: when should surveillance stop? And who of us will stop it?
Wina Sturgeon