Different Standards of Privacy
Lunchtime in China lasts for two hours, from noon to 2pm. Students and parents then return to finish their 8-hour day from 2pm until 6pm. This is a prime time to watch television. China also seizes this time to educate about new developments.
China is expanding the use of cameras in public spaces, although still somewhat behind England and other highly monitored European countries. However, while eating lunch last year in China, I was able to watch footage on CCTV of an older man extorting money from passing motorists.
China has more cars than any other country and there is a shortage of parking. Many side streets are just one lane with cars parked along both sides and a narrow single lane down the middle.
Unaware that there had been a camera installed on this street, this older gentleman walked alongside the driving lane, rather than on the sidewalk. He walked in the same direction as the cars that would have to slowly squeeze by him from behind. At the moment he detected the car coming from behind was alongside, he leaned out slightly so the mirror would hit his arm. He then dramatically acted as if it had hit him and pushed him against the parked car.
The motorist would immediately stop, hop out and console this poor man that he had apparently struck with his mirror. Insofar as any car-pedestrian collisions can result in hefty fines, the older man acting in pain and holding his shoulder suggests that a few hundred yuan would suffice for his injuries and avoid filing a report. Of course he is not injured at all, but good at acting.
This roadside extortion is called “peng ci” or a pretend crime and it was becoming common. It worked until more cameras were installed. Now, by showing this on noon television, it soon brought this extortion to a halt. The driver could merely say “I’ll wait to see the camera footage.” If the criminal states that there is no camera on that street, it reveals that he has checked that beforehand and is trying to extort money.
My Chinese colleagues appreciate the fact that outside public behaviors are subject to cameras recording street scenes and apartment entrances. China is nearly five times more crowded than the U.S. This helps the unarmed police monitor public places and see more than if they were walking the beat. My colleagues also ask me why Americans do not want surveillance cameras in public places? It is hard to explain why we would not want to be able to detect and record criminal activity.
But once they enter their homes, they expect privacy. And that is where Americans are giving up far more privacy than in China. We purchase Echo, Alexa and other “virtual assistant” devices so we can ask it to play certain music or answer some factual question. But companies that produce them can listen in on in-home conversations for various technical reasons. And that is an invasion of privacy that my Chinese colleagues would not like.
Our assertion of a right to privacy when we are out in public strikes them as strange. That is where many harmful acts occur and where they can be stopped with cameras. The old man pretending to be hit by a car mirror would not do that if a policeman was present, and the camera serves as a witness. Why do we fear cameras in public but then give away our privacy at home?
And when a West Coast terrorist was killed by police after shooting many victims, why would the cell phone company not unlock his phone so police could see if he was communicating with other dangerous terrorists? Fortunately, with time the police were able to hack into the phone, but without the help of the company.
You have undoubtedly noticed that if you search online for a product, that within a short time your screen is bombarded with a gadzillion ads about that product. While Americans demand privacy, the big online services are making millions tracking our online actions and selling that information. What we deny to government we give away to businesses.
The September 4 issue of “The Week,” describes how the Secret Service bought location data generated by smartphone apps. “Law enforcement agencies must get a warrant to ‘compel a company to provide location data,’ but there is nothing that bars an agency from ‘simply buying the data instead.’”