More handpicked essays just for you.
Privacy problems with surveillance
Government surveillance and privacy issues
Government surveillance and privacy issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Privacy problems with surveillance
Big Brother, always watching, loss of privacy: all of these are ideas associated with surveillance and the consequences surrounding it. Often in today’s society, people have experienced the always watching eye of the camera while in school and feel an immediate sense of outrage at their loss of privacy in situations like this. The balancing act of safety in a community with the concern regarding loss of privacy is a difficult one. Though many students view the loss of privacy as a terrible and uncomfortable thing, the benefits this surveillance can provide are too vital to the safety of the community to give up from this fear. The issue of surveillance in general is a common one in society, but one specific facet of this overall issue is
With today’s technological surveillance capabilities, our actions are observable, recordable and traceable. Surveillance is more intrusive than it has been in the past. For numerous years countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom have been actively monitoring their citizens through the use of surveillance technology. This state surveillance has been increasing with each passing year, consequently invading the citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to privacy,. This has lead to the ethical issues from the use or misuse of technology, one such ethical issue is should a government have the right to use technology to monitor its citizens without their knowledge or approval? For this reason this paper will examine what the terms ethics, ethical issue and state surveillance refer to. Next, an exploration into the ethics of governmental monitoring from the perspective of a variety of ethical systems such as: ethical formalism, act utilitarian, rule utilitarian and subjective relativism model. From this examination of state surveillance through ethical syste...
In the book “1984” by George Orwell, the book deals with government power. In the book, it debates about how the power of the government affected the people. Too much power by the state creates a dystopian world where everyone is forced to follow the government’s rules.
All the developed countries (developing countries are also in no way lagging behind) the incidence of the people being monitored under various surveillance systems is high of which closed circuit television system (CCTV) is gaining dominance. For instance, the UK has over 4.2 million of them, giving it a ratio of one for every 14 persons and the USA is reported to have been installing it on a rapid pace in every conceivable location as town centers, schools, public transportation systems etc with a spiraling budget estimated at $100 million. With the terrorists attacks looming large in the wake of 9/11 attacks and despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the trends are going towards more and more technology oriented surveillance methods. This has naturally caused widespread concerns about the privacy issues and necessitated more evidence based research to inform policy and practice.
Richards, Neil M. The Dangers of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review. N.p, 20 May 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2014.
In 1948, George Orwell wrote about a society in which individual privacy was nonexistent. In this society, which he imagined would become a reality in the 1980s, surveillance was foremost. Everything one did was under surveillance by “Big Brother”, an unseen figure who was always watching you. Surveillance in this society was imposed and malicious. Although this type of society has never fully become a reality in the Western world, changes in technology and media are indirectly bringing this imagined society, one of complete surveillance, to life. With the rise in corporate business and commercialism, surveillance in society increasing; however, new media has brought about a significant shift in its use. In the 20th century, surveillance was primarily used for “protective measures”, as Orwell had imagined. In the 21st century, there has been a rise in its use for commercialism. This essay will critically analyze the developments in new media that have contributed to this shift, as well as explain the reason for the ubiquitous nature of surveillance in today’s western society. To aid with this analysis, surveillance will hereby be defined as a “focused, systematic, and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (Lyon 2007:14).
“It used to be that walls have ears, but they also have eyes,” said Stephen Barnhart, owner of Barnhart Security and Alarm Services in Grandview.(Downs, 1 of 4) The United States has 2 million camera surveillance systems, according to an industry estimate, and in downtown Chicago there is an average of 3 cameras per block. More and more governments all around are protecting their public space, with surveillance cameras to catch criminals and scare the people who think about doing the wrong thing. Although they are convenient and in few cases helpful, these cameras display greater risks to privacy. Surveillance and security cameras have become extremely popular, and an invasion of privacy.
People are exposed severally on the government gallery, and they are little things they can always do to protect them from such. Unregulated surveillance could in a greater manner strip individuals of their privacy rights, and by addition, restrict coming together of people, organizations and in such a comprehensive way that could vindicate us back to the most grievous errors in history swinging back to the present day (Boghosian 89). People, non-governmental institutions are living under such oppressive realms but cannot clearly articulate their concerns and issues that affect the society for fear of state cameras (Song
Professor Anthony Giddens, a British sociologist, popularly known for his theory of structuration and his holistic view of modern societies argues that argues that surveillance continually seeks the supervision of social actors and carries with it a permanent risk that supervision could lead to domination. [4] Surveillance has its effects on the power dynamic between the watcher and those being watched. This disparity increases the risk of harms such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance. Surveillance can sometimes be necessary, even helpful. Unconstrained surveillance however, especially of our intellectual activities, threatens a cognitive revolution that cuts at the core of the freedom of the
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
Wu, T., Chung, J., Yamat, J., & Richman, J. (2014). The Ethics of Surveillance. Stanford
“Big Brother is Always Watching” stains the people of Oceania. The novel written by George Orwell, 1984, is based on the theory of how “Big Brother” is always watching you. In the book, the Oceania government controls their citizens by saying and ordering them into not doing certain things. He would utilize surveillance together with his armies to watch the people to ensure loyalty. That may seem far fetched and unrealistic, however nowadays there are ways for our government to do over and above what Big Brother was doing. Technology is taking everybody closer to the world of Big Brother due to surveillance cameras and cell phones. This is a problem and it requires immediate attention.
History has revealed that once these surveillance technologies have been put up, departments can increase the number and quality of cameras without any opposition (Sprigman). And with all of the problems and prejudices that ravage America today, the police and government will be very tempted to put more as a precaution. Right now, there is no clear line between surveillance for protection and American values. But if this continues to get out of hand, surveillance systems might change into something much more sinister. Of course, there are numerous laws and established rules that prohibit audio recording individuals without their permission. But that is just for audio and currently, there are no similar rules for camera surveillance. As time goes by, the amount of public cameras increases and this will also bring minor changes to people’s personality and even characteristics. Similar to any technology that harms privacy, the benefits of deploying public surveillance systems must be accounted for, including the benefits and the costs. The main benefit is that it can prevent petty crimes but the chances are very small. Public surveillance can change people’s experiences and normal behaviors because it has a cold effect on the mass public. This carries a very real danger because anybody could abuse this power and in the long run, would not be able to protect us from very minor crimes, much less any acts of terrorism. Public spaces serves as a macro view but schools are a specific
“Big Brother” is the term used to describe the intent to monitor individuals for any potential wrongdoing. See Philip in Figure 1, who voluntarily installed a web cam in his office. What will it be like to live in a future where this is the norm? It is important to understand what closed circuit television is, what video surveillance is, and who is using the technology.
Brin's vision of our future included the choice between two lifestyles that were illustrated by two cities. Both of the cities were based on who had the control of the cameras. In the first city the cameras were controlled by the authorities. In this city, Brin argues, we will loose our privacy, independence and liberty which are all valued by Americans. Eventually, he says, it could eliminate all crime. The new technology could allow police to solve 100% of crimes, but on the opposite side it will turn the nation into a prison. In the second city, the cameras are controlled by anyone who wants to use them. Brin argues that by giving everyone control of the cameras there will be a 'reciprocal transparency' in society. Meaning that, the once powerless now have power and anyone who wants to collect information on the public must make the same information about their self publicly available. Those that have been watched by someone will now have the ability to watch back. Brin's vision of city life in the future may be an accurate presentation. Since our need for information is growing there is no doubt that privacy is eroding.
The past decade has seen a proliferation of law enforcement security cameras in public areas, with central London having more cameras than any other city. In cities like New York, Los Angeles, and central London, cameras can be found at almost every intersection. Terrorist attacks have been a major basis for this significant increase in law enforcement security cameras; however, privacy advocates, along with many of the public, feel that it’s an invasion of privacy. People are concerned that all this video surveillance, which is continuously expanding, has created a “Big Brother” society, where people are constantly watched. This creates paranoia and unease for people that just want to go about living there private lives, without feeling that their every move is being watched. The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: does the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative sides to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras; nevertheless, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned.