Security Cameras And Public Space

The social media and the public might want police body cam footage release but sometimes it might be to graphic or controversial. Police body cameras have been a topic since the incident with Michael Brown in august of 2014. Police shot and killed an unarmed individual in ferguson, MO, leading to many people wanting cameras on police. Whether the cameras are a good idea or not this paper will explore the facts and sides of police body cameras. Overall body cameras should be required Because they can save the lives of the innocent, keep innocent people from going to jail, and can help a case as more evidence.

Although the cameras keep track of people for most of their lifetime outside their homes, the surveillance is necessary to regulate citizens and prevent them from doing criminal activity. Cameras control a large part of people’s lives, with purpose “to enforce good laws... to track the government’s political enemies, to gather ammunition for blackmail, and so on,” (Volokh 9). Cameras do not watch everyday activities to observe where one needs to go, but they are there to examine the cities for thieves and vandals. While these cameras appear in almost every part of the city, and people are unaware of what information of theirs is being taken away, the government or city does not scrutinize and judge people for everything they do. Unless a recent crime has occurred and the police requires its usage to track down the suspect, only then would a footage be released for the public regarding the criminal. Otherwise, other trivial and personal information about where one goes is not revealed. Whether the information is recorded or not, it does not affect the normal citizens who live in the area who have done nothing

In 2011, it was recorded that the city of London had the highest number of surveillance cameras per resident with 86.2 cameras for every individual. This caused the city to be named as one of the world’s most visually recorded cities. Most people believed that this would allow crimes to be resolved with ease, therefore leading to a decrease in the cities high crime rate. However according to the Metropolitan Police, for every 1000 cameras, less than one crime was solved per year. This lead to a mass debate as to the real use of the thousands of cameras being utilised around the city of London and the

To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.

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

Although many citizens believe that all the cameras would create problems, their main use is

Several studies, such as those done by Barak Ariel, et al. have demonstrated a very strong connection between the use of body-worn cameras and reduction of complaints (Ariel et al., “The Effect”) (Ariel, et al., “Contagious...”). There is also an argument to be made for the relationship between the police and their communities. If the departments invest in things that make the public feel safer, such as body-worn cameras, then they will in turn be safer, as their communities will not feel threatened by their presence, but protected.

Marfin stated the different issues presented for the department, such as the individual privacy and cost as she discussed UTPD’s process of implementing this technology. She emphasized this by stating “UTPD began testing different versions of body cameras two years ago, but the implementation of the technology took many years to complete” (par.9). Although the time and cost of the body-cameras brought issues to the department the author emphasizes that UTPD’s main goal is to build trust between the community and the police officers to ensure the community’s safety. Therefore, they made sure to invest in their safety by enforcing body cameras on the officers as explained in the article, ““This is something we believe is important to the UT community and to UTPD,” UTPD Chief David Carter said. “This is something to ensure that people have confidence and trust when it comes to our department.”” (par. 3). Throughout the article the cost of the cameras is highlighted informing how the technology works and what exactly it does to preserve the safety in the community. She emphasizes this statement by saying

“In the first year after the camera 's introduction, the use of force by officers’ decline 60%, and citizens’ complaints against police fell 88%”. (Christopher Mims) The introduction of police body cameras impacted the world in many better ways than bad. But, police body cameras were introduced due to the public 's awareness to police brutality and numerous of publicity deaths which has impacted the outcome of police interactions.

There are many ways that we are being watched and spied on. Cameras in parking garages and over red lights watch everything we do. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? In the article “Sonoma County, following a global trend, is focusing cameras on public spaces” by Paul Payne, he writes about the increasing numbers of surveillance cameras in public places in Sonoma County. Payne argues that these cameras help make the public safer by deterring crime and having video evidence of the crime in question. I agree with Payne that cameras in public places can be a good thing. I agree because It provides video evidence of crimes, would help reduce crime, but there should be limits on how much we are watched.

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

In the United States, in particular, policies such as this may be necessary to reduce police shootings and abuse of suspects. “In 2011, police killed six people in Australia, two in England, six in Germany and, according to an FBI count, 404 in the United States. And that FBI number counted only “justifiable homicides,” and was comprised of voluntarily submitted data from just 750 of 17,000 law enforcement agencies” (Stanley). The hope is that the implementation of these cameras reduces these numbers by a significant margin by providing reason for both the cops and the criminals to be more controlled. The use of cameras could also decrease the fear of police officers in routine crime stops if the citizen is aware that the officer’s actions are being recorded and

I will identify the advantages of using body cameras as well as the drawbacks (Pollack, 2017). I will discuss if I was stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense would I want to be videotaped. If I was involved in a domestic violence incident would I want to be videotaped when the officers arrived? Then I will discuss whether the police should have the discretion to turn off the camera when they believe a person’s privacy is being invaded regardless of what the person involved thinks so.

Over the past years, the public and police have not seen eye to eye. Recently, lots of disputes between the police and public have been occurring because there is confusion between their view points. A simple solution for this problem is having police use body cameras so that the public may feel safer knowing that when interacting with police, it is being recorded and can be looked back on in future situations, if needed.

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