Invasion Of Privacy

Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead

Privacy; the state of being free from being observed or being disturbed. Things such as credit card companies, ads on television, warnings on the evening news, and even locker searches at school all directly contradict the definition of “privacy”.

While I trust the government and support their policies, you, the federal government, have failed us Americans. When attempting to gain information for an investigation, nearly 22.1 million innocent Americans have been exposed to the public with their personal information hanging by a thread, according to the Washington Post. You politicians may assume that justice is served by providing victims with incentives of extra security technology, but the federal government should not be allowed to gain information from personal devices for their investigation. Furthermore, the use of malware to hack these innocent Americans is an invasion of privacy, ruins devices and their data, ensues lawsuits and their costs with unnecessary breaches, and may even put people’s lives at risk.

the cameras that are used today are used to monitor people in a way of protection. For

Albeit the cameras do good for the community, they can also cause problems like invading privacy and things being taken the wrong way. For example when someone witnessed Rodney King being beaten by a police officer in 1991 it showed that King jerked on the ground in apparent response to the beating when in reality he was resisting arrest. Nevertheless, everything is online nowadays and so easy to find out so privacy invasion isn’t even a suggestion and things being taken the wrong way can be solved by the witnesses, victims, and

Cameras have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse.

Today’s government can implement surveillance like in 1984, but the surveillance our government would do would be nothing like the surveillance in 1984. In 1984 the surveillance was to keep all citizens within Party protocol, where as today’s surveillance would be in place for the safety of the citizens. Today’s security cameras are not used to control people like in 1984, but instead are used to keep a watchful eye over the citizens and try to protect them or make them feel more safe. In the article, “Long Beach Police to Use 400 Cameras Citywide to Fight Crime,” the author talks about today’s use for security cameras and how they are being used to attempt to keep our cities safe, rather than being used to spy on the citizens

Body cameras can help the police force in many ways. For example, if a police officer is attacked, the body camera can provide crucial evidence to help identify the suspect. In an incident in Randolph County, NC, a deputy was attacked by a man with a knife. The camera provides “beautiful evidence” (Spain, “Body Camera Records Man Attacking Deputy with a Knife”) for the jury. It allows the officer to “show a judge or jury exactly what happened at the scene” (Spain). In the past, when police officers interact with suspects, the officer and the suspect could have conflicting accounts of what actually took place. Viewing footage from the body camera leaves no question as to what actually took place. The body camera can also be used as a way of teaching and training officers and provide a good example of what to do in certain procedures for

There have been many times when the use of a camera or microphone have helped to catch a wanted criminal, however, that is not always the case. There are cameras placed in stores, schools, and alleys. Wherever there are people, there are cameras. These cameras could be used to unknowingly invade the privacy of innocent people. People have not given their consent to have their life inspected under any circumstance that is not a life or death situation. Facial recognition could easily pick up on facial

Sometimes it feels like sense of "everyone is filming everybody" with the progress of science and technology and expectations of privacy development. It is very important that law enforcement agencies need seriously consider, when they use this technology how to affect the privacy rights of public, especially when courts have not yet provided guidance on these issues.

Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.

The population of our country is huge and a very large amount of them have come in contact with cameras meaning that the government is watching them. This help prevent people from doing terrible thing for instance hurting others and ruining lives. Which is where technology comes into view. Sheldon Richmond states, “But if their purpose is to protect us, why worry?

Possibly the technological feature creating the most controversy is surveillance cameras. What is seemingly there for public safety could also inhibit safety by exposing the public’s private life. Every move made under the hawk-like vision of the camera is observed and judged by someone sitting behind the scenes. Women risk being stalked by sexual predators, and assailants have been known to memorize the schedule of a subject in order to time the perfect attack (Stead). “Bad cops” may gain insight to a personal life that allows for the watcher to blackmail the victim. In recent studies it has been proven that an increase in surveillance cameras does not decrease the crime rate; it

Additionally, reporter, Heather Kelly, from CNN News, mentions in her article, “After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras,” advancements in technology have made it possible to identify suspects of crime or terrorism through video surveillance (Kelly). As stated by Kelly, through the use of surveillance cameras, not only can crime and terrorism be detected, but the perpetrators can also be identified. If these were implemented into current society, government and law officials could use them to uncover the true identities of prime suspects. As a result, matters of crime or terrorism could be solved promptly after the issues are recognized. Furthermore, since surveillance systems have made it possible to identify criminals, it would be beneficial to introduce them into the public.

Video cameras were seen as a great invention in technology when they were first created. They provide peace of mind for people in any area where crimes can be committed. They also provide hard evidence against people who commit certain crimes (Haering, Venetianer, and Lipton 279). In some cases, they serve as deterrents against people committing certain crimes. For example, if a shoplifter sees video cameras installed in a store or sees a sign saying that video cameras are in use, he might be less likely to attempt to steal anything from that particular store. The same principle applies in some homes where owners post signs announcing the use of hidden