Surveillance cameras have helped hundreds of law enforcement agencies solve thousands of crimes throughout the nation. They have become so helpful that most law enforcement agencies are planning on setting them up on street corners, buildings, publication parks, and on their own officers. There are many cities across the nation that have began to use surveillance cameras. Setting up cameras is a pivotal technique to solving and preventing crimes. Although, it is often argued that having law enforcement surveillance cameras set up throughout the nations communities is an invasion of privacy, citizens should sacrifice a little bit of privacy in return for their safety and protection of civil rights against criminals and police officers. Surveillance cameras have evolved and have become more sophisticated over the years. With advanced technology cameras are now equipped with high definition imaging, audio, and even night vision. It is important for law enforcement to be equipped with this advanced technology when it comes to deterring and solving crimes. To explain, high definition cameras provide better image quality which makes it easier to provide officers, citizens, and the media with a distinctive description of the suspect or persons of interest. With this high quality imaging police are able to read words off a newspaper or a book from a light pole twenty feet away; this is a vital aspect that can help law enforcement officials with solving various types of crimes. Next, audio will help catch any verbal exchanges between the suspect and the victim. For example, if a gang affiliated subject was allegedly involved in an altercation with a rival gang member and are standing within a certain radius of the surveillance... ... middle of paper ... ... and police officers. This crime fighting technique can save a lot of lives and will eventually be our next generation’s way of efficient and sufficient policing. Works Cited Buckley, Cara. "Microphones Join Cameras in Westchester." New York Times 22 Nov. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 9 July 2014. "Cameras don't lie." Maclean's 3 Mar. 2014: 8. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 9 July 2014. Healey, James R. "Police tracking you with license plate scans." USA Today 18 July 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 9 July 2014. “Picking Cotton: 60 Minute Special.” Prod. Shari Finkelstein. Perf. Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton. Keppler Speakers, 2011. Youtube. Web. 9 July 2014. ”The Right of Privacy Is Destroyed by Video Cameras in Public Places." Who's Watching? New York, NY: The New York Civil Liberties Union, 2006. Web. 9 July 2014.
Have you ever heard of the idea of body-mounted cameras on police officers? If not, David Brooks will introduce you to the idea that was discussed in an article from New York Times called “The Lost Language of Privacy”. In this article, the author addressed both the positive and negative aspects of this topic but mostly concerned with privacy invasion for Americans. Although that is a valid concern but on a larger scale, he neglected to focus greatly on the significant benefits that we all desire.
A way to deal with this problem seems to be body cameras. According to Jay Stanley, writer of “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All” states that body cameras are “small, pager-sized cameras that clip on to an officer 's uniform or are worn as a headset, and record audio and video of the officer 's interactions with the public.”. However, having these new cameras come with privacy and money issues. With 25% of all agencies in the nation already using them and 80% looking into them (pg. 1). So, the two main issues with body cameras have to be addressed before moving
According to the department of Justice of found that “both offices and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present”. Cameras could prevent instance of police abuse in the future and awareness to the public. Any video captured can be valuable evidence in court by providing live footage of a crime gone terrible wrong. By body cameras being recording live, police can create a better trust with in law enforcement and their communities. Using body cameras can be a create source of educating law enforcement creating better policing skills. All officers on duty should be requaired to use body cams while on duty.
In 2014, the New York Police Department announced that it would begin a pilot program to have its officers wear body cameras while on duty (Bruinius). However, the issue of privacy invasion and confidentiality of officers and the public has arisen. Though Body cameras on police officers could help in some scenarios such as random crimes, or police to citizen behavior, they also threaten privacy. Body mounted cameras are an invasion of privacy not only for the officers but also for the citizens involved. According to Freund Kelly, “Police officers often go inside businesses, private property and private homes as part of their duties. When police officers have a warrant, or believe there is an emergency,
The intent of this study is to determine the effects between the independent variable of law enforcement professionals wearing body-cameras and the dependent variable of civilian’s willingness to talk to the police. The research questions that the data collected intends to answer are: Do civilians that come in contact with police deterred from talking to them about relevant information regarding a crime when there is a camera on the officer? What effects do police body-cameras have beyond accountability of law enforcement professionals? Will body-cameras damage communication between civilians and law enforcement that could result in a decrease in willingness to report crimes thus increasing crime itself?
An hierarchy system of who is to be allowed accessed to camera recordings would be implemented and a specific time frame would be created for the storage of recording data. A recording may be kept for a week and after it should be removed from the data servers. However, if a recording is flagged for any reason whether it is for an investigation, it must be kept for a substantial amount of time until its usage is no longer needed. In this case, it will free up space for storage and save money from purchasing data storage. As a result, if a police officer receive a complaint or a civilian may feel the need to file a complaint, there will be a recording available to show an objective encounter of an incident between the officer and civilian; therefore, there will not be any biased statements from either party. Wakefield Police Chief, Richard E. Smith stated that “Studies have shown that when body cameras are deployed, citizen complaints against officers drop measurably”. As a result, police officers can gain a sense of security on their
Police officers with their body cameras: a history and back ground paper to answer the question if should all police officers wear body cameras, it is important to first look at the history and back ground of the topic. According to article of Journal of quantitative criminology, writers Ariel, Farrar, Sutherland, Body cameras have been given a new eye opener to people about the excessive use of force against their community members. Arial, Farrar, and Sutherland in the article state “The effect of police body warn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomize controlled trial” describe their observation as:
Security cameras are an invasion of privacy. These invasions begin with searches. Spying is a huge invasion of privacy. Industry sales of spy and security equipment increased from 10 billion dollars to 40 billion dollars, as stated by CCS International. (Downs, 1 of 4) People are spying on their babysitters, spouses, and even their children. Some creeps use them to violate women. They get their most embarrassing moments on tape. Lenexa police arrested a tanning salon owner when they found videotapes of naked customers. (Downs, 1 of 4)Peepers use cameras they put in backpacks, briefcases, and shopping bags to peek up women’s skirts. Sometimes these women will find themselves exposed on the Internet. This is happening more today. In 1994, in Buffalo. MO, a tanning bed worker was incriminated of secretly videotaping his clients. He was charged with child abuse and being a hazard to the welfare of a child for videotaping minors.
Everyone is entitled to privacy when it comes to law enforcement. To make the public, and the officers protecting them, feel protected, the implementation of new technology in the police force has occurred. Sometimes, this equipment backfires and ends up doing more harm than the good that it promised. When this occurs, a revaluation of what is going on should happen to make sure improvements are made. As shown by the recent privacy violations to the Round Lake Police Department regarding body-worn-cameras, officers need to become more familiar with the technology they are using and stricter policies about their use are necessary to ensure the equipment is working properly.
Body Cameras haven’t been around that long, but are making a big impact on policing. In the United Kingdom in 2005, they began testing a body camera for police officers. In 2010, over 40 areas in the United Kingdom were using body cameras. In the United States, on August 9th, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown was shot by a police officer. On July 17th, 2014 in New York, Eric Garner died while in police custody. Since these incidents, police body cameras have been a national topic. Technology is taking the world by storm, everyday there is a new, and unique gadget. Cameras are everywhere in this world. You are being recorded every day, by a camera you
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently. From there, Penenberg explains that for years before September 11th, Americans were comfortable with cameras monitoring them doing everyday activities.
Chertoff, M. (2014, October 23). Police cameras need to protect privacy, too. USA Today, p. 7a.
Whether it is walking down the street, driving on the highway, or shopping, there are usually one or more video cameras recording you. In most cities, there are cameras that record for safety purposes. On highways and busy roads, there are traffic cams that photograph cars also for safety purposes. In almost every store, video cameras are placed to prevent shoplifting. Even though daily we are being recorded, it is not always an invasion of privacy. The road cameras are only usually reviewed when there has been a traffic violation and if you did commit a violation, it is just for you to have been videotaped. The same case is true in store cameras and restaurants, if you are suspected of shoplifting it is the stores right to review the tapes. Cameras in cities or parking lots work to make people feel safe, so it is not an invasion of
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: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, 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. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.
However security cameras has its limitations, mainly if an offense was recorded on camera in terrible weather conditions or at nighttime it would be hard to see, also if the camera did not seize all of a crime as if it was not being monitored. After monitoring, officers can direct the camera, if not; it pans across an area (Chianis August 2014). Besides, security cameras shield against home robbery, and destruction. It’s very hard to get away with taking something that doesn’t belong to you if there are security cameras recording you. Security cameras safeguards people individual belongings. Also security cameras stop criminal behavior. Criminals will not want to commit a crime. The security cameras catch nearly everything on record. So, the criminal a lot of the time will get caught. Security cameras will record the criminal beforehand, or throughout the course of action (October 2009). If people are not aware of the crime until after the crime has been committed, the security camera that is recording will provide a portion of information throughout the officer’s analysis. Security cameras have been known to prevent many crimes. Most people believe that we ought to not have security cameras in shared places. The on again and off again argument that security cameras don’t provide people with the privacy necessary. You have to question, why go out in the community if you desire so much privacy? You might as well stay home behind closed doors. Security cameras are intended to keep people and their belongings secure, cameras are not put in places to hound you. In some places there isn't a logical belief of confidentiality, the profit of security cameras usually overshadow the detriments (August 2004). The most apparent advantage is that criminals that commit harsh crimes can be recognized and placed behind bars. Some other