Video Surveillance: Effective Crime Protection Tool or 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

There is so much crime which occurs in our society today, which it is very difficult to put an end to it. But there is a thing which is common among these crimes which are the criminals. According to the article, "Police body Cams: Solution or scam? Nwanevu the author has stated many questions to which he gathers the responses from three panels who is Mariame Kaba a member of the Chicago antipolice violence organization, David Fleck a vice president and he is also a major manufacturer of the police body cameras, and Connor Boyack who is a president of Utah 's Liberates Institute. This article mentions the popular magazine such as Time magazine, this magazine reports that over a quarter of the country 's police departments are already testing or actively using cameras, including the NYPD and the LAPD (Nwanevu, 2015). Also the author Nwanevu states that The Obama administration has called for the federal funding to support the deployment of as many as 50,000 devices to state and local law enforcement agencies. The administration 's reasoning captures the perspective of most camera supporters. According to the status the usage by police officers will help sustain trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they interact with (Nwanevu, 2015). Reformers have suggested that the video could have gone a long way towards resolving the ambiguities of the Michael Brown case where eyewitnesses had given conflicting stories and also the death of Eric Garner according to

used to prevent more crime from happening in certain areas. Moreover, the cameras are used to

Bill Vaughn said, “They could help prove accusations of officer misconduct,” (Blad 1, 15). “In 2014, an officer in Albuquerque captured the fatal shooting of a homeless man by officers who did not appear to be threatened. The two officers have been charged with second-degree murder and are expected to stand trial soon,” (Galles 1). Cameras can put the public on their best behavior. “When officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better,” (Knickerbocker).

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

Many will argue that the security measurements the government are taking are going too far, so far that it is being questioned whether privacy is being invaded, Bailey Nunn investigates. T he on-going intractable nature of the “privacy vs. security” debate has, for numerous years, been unresolved. Those who believe in security over privacy intend to make a safer city, whilst others believe that their privacy is being unnecessarily invaded, nevertheless, this topic is argued globally. In many countries, the use of surveillance cameras has become very prevalent, inevitably leading to more privacy issues being raised by citizens. The use of surveillance devices has become so common that it has affected our way of living, we are no longer able

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

These cameras are good for police officers because it protects them individually but also as a whole group from unjustified accusations of misusing their power of authority. Plus, officers can use footage from their recording to properly fill out their written police report (Gillett). In the perspective of citizens, body cameras are suitable because they know if there is anything dishonest that occurs, they know it has been recorded on the police’s

The need for police officers to be equipped with body cameras while on duty is crucial in rebuilding community relations and increasing police accountability. As such, there are various benefits and consequences in the implementation of this proposed policy for all police departments. While benefits include lowering rates of police misconduct, increased accountability and transparency, improved officer training, providing effective evidence for trials and reduction of civilian complaints, there are consequences such as the upfront cost of police cameras, legal and privacy concerns and reliability of body camera footage. The adoption of police body cameras has both positive and negative merits

According to Rialto’s police department, the use of force by officers declined by 60% during their first year of using body cameras and complaints from citizens dropped by 88% in the state of California. The cameras were able to keep track of the statements and evidence, but also possessed a threat to the public that may see it as an invasion of privacy. For example, citizens know that they are being recorded on cameras on streets or inside public buildings, but having a police wearing a body camera come to a civilian’s home would be a huge invasion of privacy. Although the study of the Rialto police department came back mostly positive, the fact remains that the officers still have the ability to use the cameras as they want to, and only turning it on or off when they choose to. In some states, officers are ordered to turn the cameras on as soon as they approach a citizen, or they will be responsible for any complaint or action that will happen during the encounter, keeping the officers

For law enforcement cameras are extremely important! The cameras will show the truth and nothing but the truth! It will also show what actually happened, like if the cop got an accident on film then they can figure out what happened. With body cameras, it can help decide what a person is convicted of because you get to see what the cop sees. Also, if the cops didn't have cameras and microphones, then how can you tell that the person convicted of something is actually telling the truth? So how is showing and telling the truth invading someone's privacy?

With telescreens almost everywhere and recorders everywhere, few citizens are allowed to have privacy,

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

In the modern world there have been a lot of technological advances within societies. Technology concerns about security and surveillance has changed the thoughts of people. This surveillance technology consist of spying video cameras, CCTV security and surveillance cameras, surveillance electronic communications, face recognition and many others. Some people think this technology is okay while others carry a different view.  These people feel that it is an invasion of privacy, especially when it is in a public place. Use of surveillance technology are impinging on our privacy as they are affecting student moral, privacy at workplace, behavior of people, life

In the Philippines, the installation of cameras inside the classrooms is seen in a similar light. As cited in Grafil (2011), University of Santo Tomas security chief Joseph Badinas said the cameras can be used to “track people who are doing something suspicious.”