Surveillance Camera Controversy

Surveillance cameras are found in places all around the globe. As these cameras become more popular, people have become concerned with their own privacy. Some common locations of these cameras are in stores, restaurants, on streets, and in home security systems. When a crime is committed, there can be verbal evidence provided by bystanders, but there is not more absolute proof than the proof that is provided by these cameras. Even though some people argue that surveillance cameras are an invasion of privacy, they definitely do more help than harm.

Privacy and safety of citizens is common in today's society, as well as the government looking over their shoulder at all times. As an example, George Orwell wrote a book called, "1984" which in it gave an outlook of society being taken over by a party. Government surveillance is different from protecting and bringing safety to the citizens, it violates their freedom, privacy, and human rights.

Though the consequences of citizen’s actions through technology today are not as severe or are non punishable, they do not take the government’s surveillance as seriously as the citizens of Oceania did in 1984. One NSA system can reach about 75% of all US Internet traffic, communications by foreigners and Americans (Gorman n. pag.). The US government's defense to surveillance claims is that the justification is National Security (Calamur n. pag.)., and this may be true, but the question of the freedom to privacy ratio, as a free nation, is still undecided. One way surveillance is now even more accessible is due to Google Glass. "With Google Glass, nobody's pointing a camera... phone. You no longer know if you're being filmed... an unspoken social rule is being violated" (Brown 42). and gives the government the ability to see from the point of view of anyone. With most every person you meet having quick access to some sort of recordable technology, it is easy to have your actions recorded or documented without your knowledge. The information can be easily spread around the world without your knowing or permission with just a simple touch. As said before, “.....an unspoken social rule is being violated” (Brown 42), taking away the sense of privacy and security felt by many Americans. Another form of surveillance, used by specifically the NYPD, is the use of undercover cops. Since The Occupy Wall Street

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

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

Surveillance is not a new thing. In fact, espionage, tracking, and sleuthing were part of society ever since 5000 B.C. But in the rise of the modern era, the idea of surveillance in the public eye serves as a controversial topic of discussion. People everywhere complain about the existence of security cameras, government tracking, and the right to privacy. Such problems, however, are not due to the sudden discovery of surveillance, but the modern abuse of it. Seeing the disastrous effects of over surveillance from George Orwell’s 1984, the public rightfully fears societal deterioration through modern surveillance abuse portrayed in Matthew Hutson’s “Even Bugs Will Be Bugged” and the effects of such in Jennifer Golbeck’s “All Eyes On You”. The abuse of surveillance induces the fear of discovery through the invasion of privacy, and ensures the omnipresence of one’s past that haunt future endeavors, to ultimately obstruct human development and the progress of society overall.

“First, there's no guarantee that the public will ever see footage from police body cameras, especially in cases where it may be helpful to defendants or civil litigants” (Buttar, 2016). Although this may be true in some cases, laws are being made to ensure that the footage is available for not only police but the public. For example, a police department in Seattle posts their footage to YouTube so everyone can see what their police have recorded (Dunn & Lieberman, 2017). Others believe body cameras should not be worn because of possible mass incarceration issues amongst the public. “Cameras could capture footage used against defendants in criminal trials—either where the footage depicts criminal acts, like jaywalking or selling loose cigarettes, or where it merely supports suspicion of potential crime, justifying subsequent stops and searches that would otherwise be illegal” (Buttar, 2016). Some cops could abuse cameras in such a way; however, the footage collected is currently reviewed only by specific professionals and debates over sending footage directly to specialized agencies for review is still highly considered. Sending the footage to these special facilities leaves little room for tampering by police and will help ensure the authenticity of the footage. Although many may believe those body cameras will cause more harm than help to the community, body cameras are still highly useful and are statistically reported to assist police and the

At the time Radebaugh’s comic was published, it likely gave rise to a plethora of questions about the government’s ability to track and trace members of the public. People may have questioned whether giving up their privacy was the necessary cost of safety. Perhaps the police were going to turn into their own sort of ‘Big Brother’, and they would abuse their power of surveillance techniques in order to control the masses. Consequently, the 21st century is also beset with many relevant questions concerning this topic. Ultimately, it can be stated that, in contrast with Radebaugh’s comic, the real world does a significantly more effective job of using surveillance techniques, as law enforcement uses video surveillance more cost-effectively, they utilize new and alternative technologies in addition to the CCTV camera, and they consistently do a better job of acknowledging the people’s right to privacy. Thus, this essay sets out to suggest that, while the social cost of surveillance techniques remains high, the legal provisions regarding privacy that exist in the real world have kept police

The book 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most powerful warnings ever issued to caution the dangers of a totalitarian society. The book features the worst type of society ever imagined, in the hopes of convincing readers to avoid all paths that would lead to such an invasion of privacy. Until recently, many have overlooked George Orwell’s warning. Today, surveillance cameras are used not only by the government, but also by individuals and businesses as well. They can be seen going anywhere, and they affect everyday lives in one way or another. The growing use of surveillance cameras has led to a large rise in privacy issues. Surveillance cameras are an invasion of privacy and cause more

The utilization of technology for law enforcement surveillance is not new. In the mid-1990s, dashboard cameras became a tool for catching real-time experiences between the police and the general public (Blake, 2015). In spite of early disapproval, dashboard cameras gained widespread acknowledgment as research showed constructive effects on officer responsibility as well as a decrease in agency accountability. Closed circuit (CC) surveillance systems have similarly turned out to be well-known as both a strategy for crime deterrence and as a tool for criminal inspections. Hundreds of departments tested the cameras and will buy, if you can pay hundreds of dollars for each device and the additional costs it would entail. The US President, Barack Obama, has submitted a plan of 75 million to help buy 50,000 police cameras (Gomez, 2015). There are both pros and cons of using this technology. The potential value of video proof has a downside, its inability to catch a specific event, might unreasonably hurt one side of an argument. An absence of video proof can also arbitrarily undercut an officer’s record (Gomez, 2015).

The article “A Surveillance Society” by William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Hickey is about how surveillance technology has changed over the years. The article explains the different types of surveillance cameras that exist. Why security and surveillance has grown to be the norm. The article shows the trends with other countries in the world and what they have done with the new technology. The impact of surveillance on people’s lives and what is done with the recordings and pictures is also shared throughout the article. Big brother is explained, information sharing and the information that is shared is also explained. The article identifies cameras that can be used for surveillance, like pinhole cameras. The reason why cameras became the norm

I think this is one of important topics in New Media because it is surrounded by controversy. On one hand, surveillance system is essential for national security purpose. On the other hand, it may violate the right of privacy. For that reason, the famous argument "nothing-to-hide" is wrong because everyone has the right to be left alone, and control his own information. Then the topic mentioned probable problems resulting from privacy violation such as information aggregation, exclusion, secondary use, and distortion (Solove, 2011). This topic can be used to advocate for human rights in privacy and keeping their information for themselves . To correct this harmful unfair situation, advocacy campaigns must be announced to educate people about their rights on one side, and to impose clear written regulations about how will this process be managed on other

“A Surveillance Society,” by William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Vicky (2012) is a selection from the text book Society in Focus that tells the readers about the widespread use of cameras in public places and also the risk of high tech surveillance. The authors gives the reader information about many topics such as the growing trends, different types of surveillance technology, Information sharing and the effect surveillance has on the way we are living today. Since September 11, 2001 after the horrific and devastating terror attacks surveillance systems have been increased in public. Often cameras are disguised as street lights and other things so the the citizen doesn’t even know that they are being videotaped. The author argues that this

Some citizen create a route to maximize the seclusion outside of their dwelling. The techniques for this type of seclusion would be going outside their house after midnight to shop, workout, or even eat. The number of 24 hours’ open place have dramatically increase in my lifetime. When a citizen goes outside of his dwelling at 4 am in the morning he has a reasonable thought that he will be the only one outside. When this citizen walks down the road a t 4 am in the morning he has a reasonable thought that he will be the only one walking. When this citizen crosses an intersection he has a reasonable thought that he will be the only one crossing the intersection. When the government places a camera this has created an unreasonable intrusion on his or her seclusion because they wanted to be secluded or they wouldn’t have been out at that time. There are no guidelines that govern the implementation of these traffic cameras, the storage of media, or the destruction of

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