# data[].attributes.body
A major advantage to surveillance is the prevention of crime. If everyone was watched all the time and their actions were recorded, people probably wouldn't commit crimes such as stealing as much because they would easily get caught. On the downside, having cameras that observe everyone 24/7 would stip away our privacy because everyone would know what everyone is doing at all times. Privacy would no longer exist, which would upset many people.
-Samantha Fitzgerald

# data[].attributes.body
Jeremy Fishel

# data[].attributes.headline
The New Look - Snapchat, The Sky, and What this means for the People

# data[].attributes.subject
The New Look - Snapchat, The Sky, and What this means for the People

# data[].attributes.body
After listening to the podcast and reading the articles, modern geographic technology can make surveillance a little bit more hassle-free, and makes what this world is used to seem a little bit more 'meh'. This new technology, which takes the ever-watchful eyes of security cameras to the sky, can watch a huge land mass, unlike security cameras, are harder to destroy because of their aerial view, and can still zoom in and turn back time like the cameras we can see (or not see) in a lot of places. Modern geographic technology, to say the least, is impacting surveillance by taking security to the next level and making a safe environment not as hard to create. However, when this technology is put at the mercy of the  public, I believe that this modern geographic technology is being put up to be abused. In the article about Snapchat Maps, the software is said  to be like an around-the-world view of Snapchatting. While this can be incredible, as someone in Canada can see just a snippit of life in Australia, and the software can also filter whatever is shown, I believe that this is a violation of privacy, because, just like anything that is digital, this Snapchat Map can malfunction and still show views into people's lives that they may not want to be a part of, thus leading to a prime example of abuse of this type of technology. This would also perfectly transition into the overall of this surveillance method. As with anything, this idea and innovation will have positive aspects and drawbacks. While the new aerial view can, and has, saved people and can be used for the better, and yes, it can do so many things like solve crimes at a faster pace, and even, on a public level, bring people together, I think the idea also had so many loopholes. For example, as said before, when the public use such incredible technology, they can abuse it and violate the privacy of another person. And while this technology can't go super into depth about a person's personal life, the idea itself was a bit messy and could have been thought through a lot better. Before launching this new idea, it should have been planned exactly what should be done when the public finds out there is more watching them. While chaos can't be completely stopped, it can be more prevented than what plan the new method people executed. There are so many problems, and in my opinion, while this was a great trial idea and did take a few ideas of surveillance to the next level, more time, effort, and money should have been spent working towards a simply totally better way of surveying the world. This idea is great and can save so many, and does help me feel a little safer, but there are still several chinks in the armor.

# data[].attributes.body
Being concerned over one's personal privacy rather than the safety of an entire town seems selfish to me. In a situation with little drawbacks, it would be more reasonable to protect the safety and security of many rather than the private endeavours of the few. - SE.R

# data[].attributes.headline
Is "Snapchat Maps" a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is "Snapchat Maps" a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.body
As someone who doesn't operate on Snapchat, I was way out of the loop when the initial "Snapmap" drama begin. A couple of days after the drama had began, I started researching about "Snapmaps" so I could better understand the outrage surrounding it. In the beginning - after reading a couple of "slightly" terrifying experiences - I had an extremely negative connotation about "Snapchat Maps". I mean it seems extremely creepy to have people viewing your location. However, it's been a little while since it's blown over and I'm a little bit more educated on the subject.
I don't think "Snapchat Maps" can be considered an invasion of privacy because one does have the option to turn their location off. If they don't feel like turning their locations off, they can probably just keep their account somewhat private - limiting their friends to people they know rather than a bunch of strangers. - SE.R

# data[].attributes.body
Snap maps is by no means a violation of user privacy. These maps are completely optional to participate in and hardly supply accurate information. Users can appear wherever they want on the planet by messing with Snapchat's GPS. This system is for entertainment and is no threat to the safety or freedom of any users.

# data[].attributes.body
As in any socioeconomic issue, remote surveillance is a mixed topic that has many different pros and cons. However, I believe that in this case the good outweighs the bad. In this day and age, we have the distinct ability to utilize the innovations in technology we have to protect our public and prevent violence, it would be a waste not to. Furthermore, surveillance is objectively not a violation of constitutional rights because the information being recorded is technically public, rather than private properties, which would be a violation. On the other hand, no system is foolproof, and the largest disadvantage of this type of security is its possible vulnerability to being hacked and having data for alternative purposes that could be a major threat to the public. Therefore, there must be special emphasis placed on keeping surveillance secure, in order for it to reach its full purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
Because the data being utilized in snap maps is being collected from consenting individuals who have control over of if they are sharing their location, and who they are sharing it with. Whether people understand the implications of sharing their location or not, Snapmaps are completely legal, and not a violation of privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
 Although without context surveillance may seem immoral or invasive, however it is an efficient way to protect our country from internal crime such as kidnapping, murder, and robbery, and external threats, such as terrorism and foreign military operations. The safety of the public is definitely a basis of American ideals; the constitution promotes the rights of the public to life (and implied safety and security) , and promises to "promote the general welfare." By using this surveillance to protect the public, and not going farther in depth than necessary, the government is in no one violating America's morals or its constitution. In this case, security is more important than privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The advantages of this new airborne surveillance system would be numerous, but could also come with some unintended disadvantages that are causing this new technology to be unused. Some of the obvious advantages are that this surveillance could help the authorities to save lives and to catch criminals based on the information that these planes collect. These planes would be a great help to police departments and would make some of America's most crime filled cities that much safer. These benefits don't come without ramifications though. Some of these may include: further overcrowding in American jails and prisons, criminal aid if the planes can be hacked, and unnecessary controversy as many Americans will be under-educated and will believe these planes are implemented by the Illuminati to spy on them. These planes can barely even see people in their pictures and will definitely not be able to view faces allowing this surveillance to be completely legal under the constitution. These technological advancements are the future of geography as we have mapped out the entire planet and need to utilize the information we have learned about the Earth's surface to better the lives of humans and the well being of our planet.

# data[].attributes.body
Remote surveillance is good in some ways and bad in others. Remote surveillance is good in that it can help protect you, your loved ones, and others around you; it also can be safer than human surveillance because if you lose a drone you can rebuild it, where if you lose a human you can't bring them back. However, the privacy is a major factor in the overall  needs and wants of a citizen. The remote surveillance system breaches people privacy and this is a problem. Even in the Constitution it states, "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." Which plays into no self-incrimination, but also means that we can do stuff without the government knowing. This law is being broken by the government when they use surveillance. In the end the disadvantages out weigh the advantages, and remote surveillance is not a thing that should be used. However, since the Constitution only protects the United States Of America, the government can still use it to monitor other countries that we may be in war with or are just on bad relations with.
Brennen Andrie

# data[].attributes.body
Snap Maps aren't really a violation of privacy because the user chose if s/he wants to upload certain pictures and videos to the global snap maps.
Brennen Andrie

# data[].attributes.body
There are many advantages to using remote surveillance. Some advantages are they make people happier because instead worrying about how the neighbors were killed last night and the killers still out there. Police are able to track down the killers vehicle and put the killer in prison. Citizens with this in their town are able to fell safer in their town after a suicide bomber goes off because of remote surveillance. Remote surveillance is able to track down the person and were they came from and arrest the terrorists. The camera is also able to tell which intersections have the most traffic and look for better ways to reduce the traffic at intersections. The only disadvantage of having remote surveillance is privacy breach and cost of information storage.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many positive and negative benefits to having remote security. The crime rates will go down significantly, by helping solve cases with little to no evidence. The security system could easily be hacked, contradicting the main purpose of the security system.

# data[].attributes.body
Remote surveillance is a new type of technology that is intended to help people and the community but it still has some advantages and disadvantages. One advantage that the remote surveillance has is that it can help reduce crime rates. The surveillance can watch 10,000 times the area a police helicopter could. Police can zoom into certain places and rewind the footage back if they need to. Another advantage that the remote surveillance has is that it is not that costly. The remote surveillance system costs less than one police helicopter and it also costs less to operate the system for an hour then a police helicopter. A disadvantage of the remote surveillance could be that the system could get hacked so other people other then the police could look at the surveillance which could bring some danger to the community. Another disadvantage that people might think is that this remote surveillance invades their privacy which is not the case. The cameras don't look inside homes so they can't see what your doing and the cameras can't identify the faces of individuals so they won't know what your face looks like. I don't think that this technology violates the constitution in any way since it still gives you your privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
To begin with the advantages on surveillance in public, it is absolutely a good thing to have in this day and age. The fact is that we have all this technology so why shouldn't we utilize it for things that it could be used for, like stopping crime. Now, when it comes to the disadvantages of surveillance in public places I believe that it is possible for the surveillance to be hacked and possibly used by people who want to harm others, in which the police should be mindful of possible hacking into surveillance which could be an unintended consequence of this idea. When tying this to the Constitution, people who are against this are saying that it is violating their freedoms to privacy. In actuality, it is not violating their privacy because the cameras aren't in their private homes or places, they are in public and in public you don't get as much privacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do Snapchat maps invade the user's privacy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do Snapchat maps invade the user's privacy?

# data[].attributes.body
Snapchat maps do not invade the user's privacy because Snapchat gets consent from the user if they want their location to be known by people.

# data[].attributes.body
This new surveillance technology has a good purpose and can be very helpful towards our community. It's intended to lower crime rates and solve crimes that couldn't be solved without some sort of evidence. This technology is not intended to spy on people. They can't see inside houses and the cameras aren't advanced enough to see the faces of every individual so people will still be able to have their privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I believe that the surveillance in public which is the cause of the police is a good thing. I understand that it could be an invasion of privacy, but it's not like the flying cameras are able to go into your personal space and see what you're doing. The purpose of these cameras are simple, they're helping to reduce crime rates everywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
Some advantages of these new surveillance techniques are being able to catch criminals in a matter of minutes, saving lives and lowering the crime rate. But, one major disadvantage is that, if the information and "instructions" on how these things work, get into the wrong hands, it could cause misuse and potential harm to people, in the area that the misused device is being used. I don't feel this goes against any constitutional rights that us as people have, yet. The technology invented is not yet so advanced as far as seeing detailed pictures of faces and such, but as the technology progresses, and it is able to tell who we are, that will definitely violate the constitution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Snapchat Maps a Violation of Privacy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Snapchat Maps a Violation of Privacy?

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the new Snapchat maps is not a violation of privacy. Snapchat gives you the option to be on "ghost mode" allowing your location to be hidden. When you have your location shown people can zoom in to the point where thy can see a clear picture of your location whether it be a house, park, etc. If someone feels uncomfortable with this they can just delete the app and not complain of a violation of their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that, once one have selected the "ok" button, that they have opened themselves up, for whatever is to come, or be posted on the SnapMap. That person has taken it upon themselves the responsibility to be mature and to be appropriate with what they send in to possibly be put on the map, whether it actually gets there or not. I think that if something does slip through, that it is not SnapChats fault, but the person who sent in the "application". Therefor, once someone has aloud SnapChat to track there locations, they have given the app permission to "invade" that part of their privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The new, modern technologies are impacting surveillance, because the things people are inventing, although can be used for good, are becoming a very controversial topic among the different sides that people see it. Some see it as the perfect way to stop crime, and some see it as an invasion of privacy. But, since there are two or more sides who see these new surveillance techniques in a different way, there is some fear being implemented into the mind of the more neutral parties, for things that have not yet been tested, such as some of the "plane surveillance cameras". The fear comes from those who believe these cameras are like and/or related to drones and, "...they equate drones with killing people.". These kinds of things are preventing the progression of, what could be, extremely helpful and life saving tools.

# data[].attributes.body
Today's geographic technology makes a major impact on surveillance. Take Google Earth for example, you are able to see every square inch of the world, not live, but you still have the ability to view anything in the world at your finger tips. On Snapchat we have the ability to view our friends locations if they share it with us. If we have our location settings on, on our phones anyone could read our IP address

# data[].attributes.body
Remote surveillance has its' pros and cons. It can help police forces and other military operations do their job effectively and quickly. It doesn't see into anyone's house or into any buildings for that matter since it is several hundred feet in the air. No one's faces can be seen since the cameras are taking photos from such a great distance, protecting people from the idea of being tracked and targeted. The service is also very inexpensive. However, there is the fear that it would be used by terrorists to plan and attack areas. As technology advances, clear imaging may come to be, confirming their fears of being watched. If the first amendment were to be applied to this situation, people who haven't consented to the surveillance can say their freedom of speech was unheard. But in order to have domestic tranquility, crime must be prevented, which remote surveillance does. -Sidni Harrington

# data[].attributes.body
Snapchat Maps is not an invasion of privacy simply because users decide if they want their photos to be shared with the world or not. -Sidni Harrington

# data[].attributes.body
All the surveillance is doing is monitoring the streets to watch out for crimes so that they can catch the "bad guys." They aren't purposely looking at citizens to see what they are doing, they can't even see their faces. -Sidni Harrington

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Snapchat Maps a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Snapchat Maps a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.body
Snapchat maps is not a violation of privacy because nothing is shared with the public without the consent of the user. For instance, when someone uses Snapmap for the first time, they ask if it is okay for Snapchat to monitor your locations for others following you. Most people, however, don't pay attention to this factor and just click okay without paying attention to what it is saying. Also, because we can choose to share our daily life with the world, we aren't being violated at all, and what Snapchat is doing, is completely legal

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that these surveillance techniques should be implemented as quickly and widespread as possible. We people are tiny dots on a screen, but large objects like cars are easily seen and detected. These technologies are progressive and can only do good, as long as they stay used for good. There no unintended consequences, it cannot zoom in close, so it cannot see faces. It purely serves as a watchful eye protecting cities from possible crime. It doesn't violate the constitution, seeing as how it's in the people's best interest. As for Snapchat maps, everything you put on there is completely and totally your decision. They even allow you to go on "ghost mode", where nobody can see you on their map. And since the only people that can see you are the people you've added, there's no way anyone can track your location on there, unless they're a friend.

Eli Manutes

# data[].attributes.body
The surveillance can be used to good by identifying criminals but can also be used to spy on people

# data[].attributes.body
The snap chat map is not an invasion of privacy. Every person on the map controls if anyone can see them and what specific people can.

# data[].attributes.body
People can use surveillance as evidence in court. A disadvantage is you never know who has access to surveillance.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously the security benefit for any region from persistent surveillance technology is extreme, Mexican police can use it to capture cartel death squads, America can use it to track Iraqi suicide bombers. The concern is when that is applied to ourselves, does America have the same level of security threat that these unstable nations with roaming death squads have? No, but does that mean the technology is unjustified? In Baltimore it was used to solve a murder by tracking the suspect, or to capture a group who assaulted a police officer. This justifies the use of such technology in America, it allows the police to deal with the security threats they otherwise could not. However, there is the potential of this technology in the future being used for other things, with superior technology they could theoretically be used to watch individuals personal lives and violate the fundamental right to privacy, however at least for now this isn't the case.

Bill Steinmeyer

# data[].attributes.body
The advantages are pretty obvious and fairly compelling. The technology not only solves crimes but also deters them. There is also a convincing comparison that people are already watched to a large extent and the new technology isn't really anything different, just accessible from a single place. The disadvantages however are much harder to put into a labeled box. This is because its hard to know exactly what the unintended consequences will be until the technology is actually implemented. On the note of constitutional connections, the technology as of current doesn't violate any aspect of it. Lastly, we can see that the role of modern geographical technology has far reaching applications from crime to traffic studies, and isn't simply confined to map making. - Connor Reed

# data[].attributes.headline
How can the public and the police come to a compromise?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can the public and the police come to a compromise?

# data[].attributes.body
The public is concerned that these flying cameras are an invasion of privacy. The police are focused on the issue of crime, and they believe crime can go down if they are able so see into the public. So, how can the police and the public come to compromise? I think that the public should be informed that the surveillance

# data[].attributes.body
With saying that it is okay to fly an aircraft over Mexico City, but not over Dayton, Ohio, comes an impeccable level of bias. If it is done in one place it must be done in all, especially if there are only a handful of individuals from specific countries that have this technology. It would indeed help for military purposes, as

# data[].attributes.body
Security is more important to the public than privacy, as privacy

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Snapchat Maps a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Snapchat Maps a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.body
No. When a user posts onto snapchat maps, that is entirely their decision and their doing. Snapchat always asks for permission to use your location so nothing is forced. A user can choose whether or not they want to be on snapchat maps, which makes it not a violation of privacy.
-Samantha Fitzgerald

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Snapchat Maps a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Snapchat Maps a violation of privacy?

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I don't think that Snapchat Maps is a violation of privacy because Snapchat users can decide if they want other people to see their location. Having your location shown on Snapchat is not forced, it's an option that you are allowed to choose.

# data[].attributes.body
People consent to use snapchat maps, by selecting our story, they elect it to be a public video. This means they forfeit their right to that information or video, they are consenting to this being public. As such it is in no way shape or form a violation of privacy, because it isn't something someone is forced to do, they choose to do it.

Bill Steinmeyer

# data[].attributes.body
Snapchat Maps are objectively not a violation of privacy for the simple reason it is not forced. A person intentionally and consciously makes the choice to use the maps, no one is forcing anyone else's hands, its simply a cost of the program one decides to use. - Connor Reed

# data[].attributes.body
The privacy is not a problem because the pictures of people are just pixels so you can't make out definite features.
Brennen Andrie

# data[].attributes.body
It's easy to get on board with the surveillance when emotionally blinded with the shooting in Juarez. And undoubtedly the technology offers positives; it can solve crime, save lives, etc. However, no one knows what will come after this technology. Who will be able to use it? Who will be able to access it? Post WW2 the US government has not been as accountable, which can be seen with surveillance agencies. So while the policy has some obvious positives, its impossible to know what its impacts will be besides those. - Connor Reed

# data[].attributes.body
According to the articles, experiments have shown that this new technology helps lower crime rates in the areas that it is used.It is watching for crime, not innocent people. It cant see inside buildings. Therefore, it is a good way to improve crime rates and respect peoples overall privacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Technically not violating the constitution 

# data[].attributes.subject
Technically not violating the constitution 

# data[].attributes.body
So there is a misconception about the constitution that individuals are entitled to privacy, yes, but only in their own private property, individuals are not entitled to privacy when in public places. Thus the flying cameras do not actually violate any law, individuals are in public space and thus their actions are not entitled to privacy. It might seem morally or ethically wrong, but it isn't able to watch people shower or identify faces, it tracks movement of individuals in public space, which is mostly legal. The only concern would be if this cameras get good enough to discern faces, to capture images through windows. However as is, they just track movement of pixels, and allow police to use preexisting traffic or atm cameras along the route to get more detailed images.
Bill Steinmeyer

# data[].attributes.body
The technology is not only bad but also good. The technology in California and Ohio takes away our right of privacy. While on the contrary, the  technology in Mexico can save peoples lives and catch "the bad guy". So depending on how it is used, it can be a good thing.

# data[].attributes.body
The opinion of the public in the area that the technology is being used is never going to be universal. It would not be right unless the opinion was universally in favor of it

# data[].attributes.body
The technology that was used in California, and Ohio goes against part of the fundamentals of this country. It takes away freedom of privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
They use the streets of Mexico to demonstrate how we need these surveillance planes in the United States even though the situations are very different.

# data[].attributes.body
The question between surveillance and security has many implications concerning not what technology is able to do, but what the opinion of the pubic is on the situation. The inability of the public and officials to find a common ground is the problem here, but that is exactly what they need. An idea that might satisfy both is that the aircraft stays in the sky, but the video it records can only be accessed for a criminal case that is already existent, meaning the footage could not instigate any charges.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I believe that that are little disadvantages to the use of remote surveillance.
First of all, as stated throughout the podcast, the cameras that were attached to the aeroplanes were not equipped with the highest resolution camera quality. As the lady narrator had stated, "the cars looked like tic-tacs" and "people were pixels".  This showed that even if there were planes surveying the area you lived in, they would have no idea about who you actually were - all they would be seeing is "the top of your head", no discernible qualities being shone. They would have no reason as to meddle with your business, either, unless you were connected with criminal activity.
Secondly, since the cameras survey from an aerial view, no violating/illegal shots would be taken. If the camera were on horizontal plane (not an aeroplane - a car for example), it would be a different story, as the camera would be much closer to one's face and they would be much closer to private property. However, that isn't the case because not only is it impractical (surveying smaller areas like streets for hours on end would just waste gas and not receive as many positive results), but it would also cause a much larger uproar. Filming in atmospheric conditions, over a city for example, would be much more rational since you would have the opportunities to view the entirety of the city all at once.
Though remote surveillance gains the "okay" from me, there are a couple of things that may become drawbacks in the future (ie: corruption/hacking and mistrust).

What I mostly took away though, was that if you don't do idiotic illegal stuff, you won't have a reason to worry. - SE.R