The Increased Presence Of Public Surveillance Technology Justified

Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.

This article argues that surveillance is becoming increasingly normal across the USA and the world and that this is changing our freedom and security. It mentioned that globalization and migration of people from different countries some who threaten our country has made this surveillance more necessary to protect our citizens from theorists acts. The article uses examples of video-surveillance to make this case and to argue for both stronger resistances to calls to make our human rights more flexible in a risky time.

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

1. Use of on premise security cameras to spy on the activities of fellow employees

The controversy on government surveillance is very controversial. Should the government have unlimited access to citizen’s personal information, conversations, and text in order to protect the country? Or should the government have more of a laissez-faire-type role in citizen’s private lifestyles? Across the world, there are different approaches on the government’s surveillance on people. Iceland’s policies are the least intrusive in the world, with almost no surveillance and laws protecting the people’s freedom of speech. On the other end of the spectrum is China, which is in the process of creating a constant surveillance system of all its citizens. Somewhere in the middle of this scale is the United States of America. Influences by other

One of the main purposes for government surveillance is to stop terrorists. However, it is not doing such a good job, which it was created for. Terrorists are still carrying out attacks in US and Europe despite the government having more access to surveillancing tools. Additionally, most of the terrorist plots that are uncovered are discovered through alternate investigation method not by government surveillance (Terbush). Two senators stated, "We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA's dragnet collection of Americans' phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence" (Wyden and Udall). The two senators are questioning whether NSA is effective in their methods in gaining crucial information, saying there are no evidence

Thesis statement: Government surveillance should be stopped because it is an invasion of privacy and gives the government control that is not enumerated in the constitution.

Everything one does on a computer or a phone leaves a trace. Records of the amount of internet data one uses and the durations of phone calls one makes are collected by service providers. It makes sense for telecommunications companies to keep these kinds of logs on their customers, because this is allows them to determine the amount on bills. However, other parties are privy to a much deeper level of information.

After reading both arguments on the topic of whether or not video surveillance heightens public safety or is more of a violation of rights, I believe that video surveillance does indeed heighten public safety. The benefits of video surveillance far outweigh the violations at risk. We should instead feel more confident in the success that the police have had with the placement of surveillance.

Every day, nearly every single person communicates with each other electronically whether it is via email, text or phone call. It is quite nearly impossible to go a day without using a cell phone or personal computer; some cannot live without our internet-connected devices. Through all of this communication, there is a lot of very personal information is revealed without thinking about whether or not there can or will be an impact of doing this. In June of 2013, the impact became apparent when Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee, became a whistleblower and revealed mass surveillance programs happening in the United States and other countries where the communications of all citizens, and all the data therein, are being recorded and collected at all times (Snowden). While some have been suspecting that this has been happening for years, this is the first time that concrete evidence has been revealed to prove that government surveillance occurs in the modern era. This revelation no doubt was controversial with many citizens feeling many different ways about it. The popular street artist Banksy decided to do a piece about government surveillance where there are three men with various recording equipment surrounding a phone booth and recording what is happening within the phone booth. I believe that this art piece effectively points out the underlying problems with both the very idea of government surveillance.

Current advances in government surveillance practices are in evident violation of the fourth amendment. It is lawful, and understandable to varying degrees among the public, that “warrantless wiretapping” under special circumstances, such as the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks can be deemed necessary if the said practice was conducted strictly temporarily (Landau 55). In fact, this very excuse was used to justify and serve as the initial rationale behind these surveillance practices. Following the claims of whistleblowers Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden, it has now come to public attention that the National Security Agency (NSA) has assumed permanence of this granted liberty and now continues this practice even targeting everyday law-abiding citizens.

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

“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” (Edward Snowden). A lot of criminals were accused according to witnesses’ testimonies. On the other hand, in the case of witnesses absence, the crimes become hard to be solved. The surveillance cameras provide the advantage of a trusted testimony at any time where they exist but are they the proper method to be used in combating the crimes. The controversy here could be represented in three main points. The privacy of people could be invaded easily through the surveillance cameras as they are recording the daily habits of the people (Schwartz, A., 2013). In the

This is the perspective of many but there are arguments against the facilitation of electronic surveillance. As previously stated, the use of technologically assisted surveillance can diminish privacy, the openness of society, association and travel, and the freedom of speech. By the end of this essay you will have the information to make your own judgment.

Furthermore, Misuse of CCTV surveillance is not limited; Data Protection Commissioner Billy Hawkes revealed his office opened 783 formal complaints during 2010, with more than 400 cases related to data security breaches. This is how day by day use of CCTV is increasing and misuse of it is also increasing so it will be better to reduce usage of this CCTV. There are so many issue in more developed countries due to high use of surveillance technology An article title of BBC new on 6 December 2005 “CCTV staff 'spied on naked woman'” Two council workers used CCTV