Security is currently one of the primary concerns of many governments across the globe, especial after a significant increase in criminal activities and terrorism. Many strategies, therefore, have been formulated and implemented to enhance the safety and security of the people. The installation of surveillance cameras in public places is one of the interventions that are being used by countries to enhance public security. The United Kingdom is now leading regarding the number of surveillance cameras as it has about 4.2 million in public places (Piza, 2018). Other developed countries like the US have embraced the trending and are investing a lot of resources to ensure that cameras are installed in public places. However, the use of surveillance cameras in public places is raising privacy concerns. Many people are now worried about their privacy when they walk or relax in public places because of the fear that they are being watched. Privacy is not only a human right, but it determines the health and well-being of the people. Even though security is essential, the government should ensure that it gives privacy a priority when it installs cameras in public places.
The main argument used by the government to support surveillance cameras in public places is the need to enhance the security of the people while preventing and deterring criminal activity attempts. Even though the argument may be valid and somehow true, the use of cameras in public places has a bad history, as it was mainly used by the dictatorial governments to oppress their enemies and the public at large. Oppressive governments rely on the surveillance techniques and technologies to collect information about perceived rivals and to maintain the status quo ( Kremer, 2017) . Despite the noble objective of the government to use cameras in public places to boost security and safety of the people, it is still possible that the technology can be misused to collect private and confidential from people, which violates privacy rights and privileges.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Many organizations and activists have consistently argued that the installation of cameras in public place grossly violates the privacy of individuals. One such organization is The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and it has criticized the government for using surveillance cameras in public places to collect an individual’s private information without their consent and knowledge. ACLU is also concerned of the instances where embarrassing cameras about individuals have leaked to the public ( Freund, 2015) . The cases show that the information collected from surveillance cameras are not only mismanaged but also invades privacy.
Many studies have revealed that surveillance cameras do lead to a significant reduction in criminal activities. The analysis that was done by Piza (2018) showed that surveillance cameras could only reduce vehicle crimes in car parks. “CCTV was effective in car parks, particularly against vehicle crime, but not in city centers or residential areas” (Piza, 2018, p. 3). But still, surveillance cameras can only reduce car crimes in car parts and not in other places such as residential areas or city parks. Studies have also found that surveillance cameras can reduce robbery and street crimes. Thus, the argument that surveillance cameras can reduce criminal activities can be challenged based on the scientific-based evidence (Piza, 2018). With the evidence that cameras can be effective in preventing car crimes in car parks, it should not be used in public places other than areas designated for vehicles. It is not logical to subject the public to the perpetual fear of invasion of privacy when surveillance cameras are not effective. The common argument that surveillance cameras improve public safety and security is false.
Continuous collection of information from the people against their will negatively affect their self-determination and can lead to psychological problems. Privacy is one of the factors that influence personality development, which ends up affecting the behavior of an individual. Putting people under constant surveillance result in psychological pressure (Kremer, 2017). Surveillance cameras do not only violate the privacy rights of individuals but it affects their development, which may have a long-term impact on society. Jones (2016) is also concerned that the implementation surveillance cameras have been done in such a way that it grossly violates the privacy of people in public places. One of the major concerns of Jones is that the government does not have a clear framework or guidelines on how to utilize the collected information. As a result, it is possible for the cameras to be used maliciously by law enforcement officers. Like human right organizations and activists, Jones is worried surveillance cameras are used to invade the privacy of individuals.
Nonetheless, despite the privacy concerns, the government and law enforcement agency maintains the importance of surveillance cameras in enhancing public safety and security. They argue that there is enough scientific-based evidence exists to prove that the use of surveillance cameras can assist in reducing and managing crimes, leading to enhanced public safety and security. People are not likely to commit a crime when they are aware that they are under surveillance, which explains why cameras are used to deter crimes (Priks, 2015). Law enforcement agencies and criminologists argue that deterring crime is one of the most effective ways to boost security, because it is not only pro-active but also cost-effective, especially when compared with reacting to criminal activities ( Kremer, 2017). Unfortunately, surveillance cameras can only deter car crimes in public places and not any other crime.
The increasing rate of terrorism is also another reason the government is using to justify the installation of surveillance cameras in public places. With increased cases of terrorism that kills millions of people, the use of surveillance cameras in public place is inevitable. In April 2013, for instance, the Boston Marathon bombing led to the death of three people while 264 others were left nursing severe injuries. Such terrorist attacks could have been prevented been prevented through the use of surveillance cameras in public places (Priks, 2015). Nonetheless, “with a few CCTV cameras that were available in the area, law enforcement officers were able to quickly apprehend Boston bombers, which is an indication that the massive use of cameras can prevent serious crimes like terrorism from occurring in the society” (Priks, 2015, p. 290). Such arguments and examples are used to support the installation of surveillance cameras in public places. But there is no clear evidence that surveillance cameras can reduce the rate of terrorism.
Some people also argue that there is no privacy in public places. Kremer (2017), for instance, opines that there is no way a person can claim to enjoy privacy in public places when they are aware that many people are watching them. He also maintains privacy should not be perceived to be being seen, but rather it should be defined based on a person's independence and dignity. As a result, people should not claim privacy in public places. However, such arguments are vague because it avoids the fact that people also interact with one another in public places and that is why there are areas such as public parks and recreational centers. People in public places also share a lot of information. Surveillance cameras, therefore, invade individual privacy.
To prevent the invasion of privacy, Jones (2016) suggests that the law enforcement agencies should have a clear legal framework that ensures that information and video footage from surveillance cameras are only used for security purpose. Any person who is found misusing information from surveillance cameras should be prosecuted and face severe punishment for invading the privacy of individuals. Nonetheless, countries that heavily rely on surveillance cameras do not have adequate legal frameworks to guide the use of such technologies. The UK, for instance, only depends on the code of conduct that was designed by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has a limited scope and cannot effectively prevent people from misusing information and video footage from surveillance cameras (Adams & Ferryman, 2015). The same applies to Japan that has weak data protection legislation. It is expected that people would go to court in case of surveillance cameras invade their privacy. However, according to Heumann et al . (2016), the court has done little to address legal issues that relate to modern technologies, including surveillance cameras. As a result, people whose privacy has been invaded by surveillance cameras may not get justice. Lack of a clear legal framework or legislation provides loopholes for the violation of privacy.
Strategic installation of surveillance cameras is another way of protecting the privacy rights of the people. Evidence shows that surveillance cameras can only be effective in preventing car theft (Piza, 2018). To enhance the effectiveness of cameras, they should just be installed in car parks while police officers should patrol other public places. Privacy issues should also be considered when surveillance cameras are installed in public places such as car parks. They should be designed to avoid or mask inappropriate views such as private yards and residential areas.
Therefore, public privacy should be given a priority when the surveillance cameras are being installed. The use of cameras in public places to enhance public safety and security is an emerging trend. Law enforcement agencies believe that installing cameras in public places can reduce crime. However, this is partially true because cameras can only reduce car crimes and any other crime, especially based on the findings of various studies. People need their privacy to go on with their daily activities without the fear of being watched. They also need their privacy for self-determination and personality development, which cannot be achieved when surveillance cameras are installed in public places. The use of surveillance cameras should be sensitive to individual privacy. “Expanding a right to privacy into the public sphere means essentially to protect the capabilities of the individual to enter into a relationship with society, (Kremer, 2017, p. 58).”
References
Adams, A. A., & Ferryman, J. M. (2015). The future of video analytics for surveillance and its ethical implications. Security Journal , 28 (3), 272-289.
Freund, K. (2015). When cameras are rolling: Privacy implications of body-mounted cameras on police. Colum. JL & Soc. Probs. , 49 , 91.
Heumann, M., Cassak, L., Kang, E., & Twitchell, T. (2016). Privacy and surveillance: Public attitudes on cameras on the street, in the home, and in the workplace. Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy , 14 , 37-83.
Jones, E. (2016). Rushed implementation of body-worn cameras could cost citizens their right to privacy . Texas, Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas (LEMIT).
Kremer, J. (2017). The End of Freedom in Public Places? Privacy problems arising from the surveillance of the European public space . Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/176300/TheEndof.pdf?sequence=1
Piza, E. L. (2018). The crime prevention effect of CCTV in public places: a propensity score analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice , 41 (1), 14-30.
Priks, M. (2015). The effects of surveillance cameras on crime: Evidence from the Stockholm subway. The Economic Journal , 125 (588), 289-305.
