The history of recruiting citizens to spy on each other in the United States.
Ever since the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden, we think about surveillance as the data-tracking digital technologies used by the likes of Google, the National Security Administration, and the military. But in reality, the state and allied institutions have a much longer history of using everyday citizens to spy and inform on their peers. Citizen Spies shows how If You See Something, Say Something is more than just a new homeland security program; it has been an essential civic responsibility throughout the history of the United States.
From the town crier of Colonial America to the recruitment of youth through junior police, to the rise of Neighborhood Watch, AMBER Alerts, and Emergency 9-1-1, Joshua Reeves explores how ordinary citizens have been taught to carry out surveillance on their peers. Emphasizing the role humans play as seeing and saying subjects, he demonstrates how American society has continuously fostered cultures of vigilance, suspicion, meddling, snooping, and snitching. Tracing the evolution of police crowd-sourcing from Hue and Cry posters and America s Most Wanted to police-affiliated social media, as well as the U.S. s recurrent anxieties about political dissidents and ethnic minorities from the Red Scare to the War on Terror, Reeves teases outhow vigilance toward neighbors has long been aligned with American ideals of patriotic and moral duty. Taking the long view of the history of the citizen spy, this book offers a much-needed perspective for those interested in how we arrived at our current moment in surveillance culture and contextualizes contemporary trends in policing."
I found the ideas in this book pretty interesting because I never really thought about see something, say something cultural or the government monopoly on violence before so I enjoyed learning new things especially our long standing tradition of policing our own neighbors. It really raises interesting questions about how much responsibility the government holds in investigating crime versus who is responsible for the safety of the people living in this country. I just wish the author had given us some counter arguments or at least addressed them a little more in the book. Also the summarizing was a little extensive in the book, you don't have to tell me what you're going to tell me, just tell me. A really good read though especially with the new technology allowing the government much more power over watching over us and the way it tries to limit the citizens from turning the tables and trying to surveillance them.
I greatly enjoyed this book's technological and cultural history of policies attempts to use citizens to look for and report crime. The discussion of the way the police grappled with the telegraph as well as the history of neighborhood watch (which was negatively contrasted with more violent neighborhood protection movements) were both particularly excellent.
Read a few years ago, and re-read today. Depressing. I don’t want to live in a country where everyone is supposed to snitch on everyone for any “suspicious behavior”. And where on the same time government is spying on everyone, and Americans just haven’t been shocked with any TIA revelations by Snowden etc. So people should snitch on people, but allow the government to spy on the people. Gotcha...
A fairly comprehensive look at various police and homeland security initiatives that ultimately asks the question: Security or freedom? A bit academic and dense at times, it is well-written and nicely paced overall.
After reading the introduction and the first two chapters, then flipping through the upcoming pages that contained more of the same, I could no longer bring myself to continue. It read like a student's report on government incompetence and a blending of conspiracy type quotes to prove the point. Netgalley. Full Disclosure: I was allowed to read a copy of this book for free as a member of NetGalley in exchange for my unbiased review. The opinions I have expressed are my own and I was not influenced to give a positive review.