Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Positive effects of surveillance cameras
Surveillance technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Since surveillance cameras have been invented for security reasons at shopping malls and stores they have also been place in public areas such as stoplights, parking lots, hallways, bus stops, and more. I mainly think that our privacy maybe invaded due to the cameras being placed in a mass of public areas privacy can easily be invaded I don’t like it because if your on the phone and the people that watch the tapes can read lips can see what you are saying/texting and with texting they can zoom in on the messages. Basically the government wants to see what we are up to 24/7 which is wrong for us now in stores and businesses I don’t really care for because those are to help catch thieves in the act of stealing store goods like TV systems, games systems and a lot more but really they invade a lot of privacy. Security cameras can be found in shopping malls, stores and in schools all across the US to help prevent theft in those buildings with security cameras can be benifituary in the places to catch robbers thieves shoplifters and employees not doing their work on camera. Security cameras can be found all over the mall from stores to the food courts to ensure safety. If we go back to six-seven years ago there was a shooting in the Muskogee Oklahoma mall didn’t have those cameras for proof of evidence the man convicted of shooting a child and other people would have a long trial but since they did they had all the proof they needed. Say like you in a parking lot and you minding your own business and people “think” your doing something illegal and you get falsely accused those cameras can help you in a good time but say if you were on the phone and the cameras had sound or a microphone to capture sound and here you over the phone t... ... middle of paper ... ... falsely accused of a federal crime (which is rare). Basically security cameras are basically good and bad in all ways due to helping the public and bad for invading peoples privacy daily which would not surprise me that the government is also up to no good doing all of this but if it helps catches people who are hacking computers from other countries then oh well with that stuff. So in all ways they are good and bad for most public areas besides stores and high criminal activity area parking lots for the US otherwise crime will not stop for the people in the US and privacy will keep being invaded as long there is crime. Works Cited http://cnnstudentnews.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/cameras-privacy-and-security/ http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/privacyissues/a/video_privacy.htm http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-video-surveillance-cameras-in-public-places-a-good-idea
I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s action when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in court rooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situations in question. A case of which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened.
...that was for public safety purposes is being used for advertising – the cameras are able to recognize faces and thus target the ads. The so called “telescreens” that Orwell made up are actually already in our households. New “Smart” televisions send data about our behaviour and what files we have back to remote servers where they are analysed in order to make the marketing even more effective. However, this is just a beginning. If people are ignorant enough, the companies and government have a free rein to spy on citizens.
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.
Body cameras can be major proof3 of evidence when things go wrong. The footage of the live cameras can have a major impact in the court because it would help with in the proof of evidence when it comes to an arrest. For example the Oscar Grant case, during the arrest the officer fired a bullet into the back of Grant, who was laying his face down and not using force during the arrest. Evidence came from a cell phone camera during the arrest. Body cameras cannot only help the person being arrested but as well help the officer themselves because it can show whos moraly right and
Lewinski says, on the off chance that you look far from where the camera is concentrating, you may not see activity inside of the camera outline that has all the earmarks of being happening 'just before your eyes. Another is “some important danger cues can’t be recorded” Tactical cues that are important to police officers in deciding whether to apply the use of force are difficult for the body cameras to capture. In an example given by Lewinski, Case in point, an assaultive subject who conveys his hands up might look to a civilian like he 's surrendering, however to you, taking into account past experience, that can be an exceptionally scary and contentious development, flagging his planning for a battling assault. The camera just catches the activity, not your
In America we take freedom and privacy for granted, we as people are unable to comprehend how safe our country actually is, especially in today's society. With that being said there is something that we must all understand, in this age of technology if people are not surveillanced it puts everybody else in our country and the country itself at risk. There are aspects of our privacy and life that we have to sacrifice in order to secure the freedom that we do have. The NSA and U.S. government needs access to our private information in order to ensure the safety of our country and citizens.
This allows people to be recorded without their consent or even knowledge of the event when they are in a situation with an expectancy of privacy. In some cases this can be helpful when trying to catch a perpetrator however, it is still a violation of privacy. Freund also claims, “a person who is approached by a police officer wearing a body-worn camera cannot readily avoid having his identity recorded”(99). So, by the time a person was to realize they were being recorded, it would be to late for them to protect their identity, even if they had nothing to do with a crime or what was intended to be
Officers need sufficient training on the technology they are to use in their job, and policies regarding body cameras use within the police department need to be strong enough to guarantee their success. Across the United States police departments, the level of training and procedures in how to use body cameras vary from police station to police station. Due to this, it is hard to determine what the most effective way to use these cameras is. Those with weak policies are more likely to face legal issues such as the lawsuit in Round Lake. Without knowing how to operate the equipment properly and issues such as placement of the device the technology could become ineffective (Bakardjiev). By training officers to use the equipment properly police officers will be more familiar with it and be able to avoid issues in the equipment. At the forefront of the Round Lake issue, the invasion of privacy must be addressed. The reason cameras are not constantly filming officers is to build a positive work environment and foster trust (Bakardjiev). The ten officers in the lawsuit feel as if that trust was violated. The implications of the lawsuit are those who were in charge of training and ensuring the cameras were working as promised failed, and this has broken the trust of the officers
It transcends the line between public and private identity. When all of someone 's private information is being watched, then who are they as a person? Citizens cannot allow their identity to be confiscated for the protection of the unknown. Tamara Thompson states in her article Overview: What is Domestic Surveillance? that, the NSA has constructed a program that lets it hijack almost anything. Using this skill, most American 's information is automatically taken in, without a purpose. What is America 's deepest and darkest secret? Because what might be a secret, will be known to someone. With the hindsight of constantly being over watched, then how can America freely do what they please? Insecurities will consume the mind with the thought that the NSA, or someone like it is watching us. Not only is it hurting America emotionally, but it is hurting America physically with the economy. These government agencies are making numerous unnecessary purchases every day with the attempt at securing our homeland. Why is it necessary to live in constant paranoia if the majority of America is doing nothing wrong? There are other ways to stop terrorism, and spying on the public is not one of them. Domestic surveillance is not necessary by any
Body cameras have been the new initiative over the past few years. Barack Obama announced that in 2014 allocated millions of dollars for federal funding to allow police officers to wear body cameras and to increase their training (Harvard Law Review). There are many organizations that have voiced their opinion of the use of body cameras. Many have stated that body cameras are a good idea and they should be implemented. The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that they are believe body cameras should be used across the country, but the public should still have their privacy (Harvard Law Review).
The benefits of national surveillance go beyond merely preventing crime and acts of terror, we would be able to create a society in which everyone could live up to their greatest potential, deviant behavior and self and societal destructive lifestyles could receive intervention and be eliminated.
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
There are some major upsides in having cameras in public places. In early 2013 two people set off bombs at the Boston marathon, which killed several people and injured hundreds. The city of Boston had cameras monitoring the streets, and was able to identify the bombers within two days. (La Vigne, Nancy) The FBI was able to catch them before they were able to carry out another planned attack in Times Square, which could have been much, more devastating. In addition to being able to solve crimes that have already happened by using cameras, we are also able to use them and the other technologies that go with it to prevent crime. The National Security Agency has reported that it has prevented several terrorist attacks since 2001 using new technology put in place to prevent the attacks. However, much of the NSA’s tactics have been criticized lately, though the majority of people still agree that it is worth it. Using cameras is also a cheap way to monitor an area. Having to employ several police officers to patrol an area can be expensive and those officers could be out doing more important jobs. When you have cam...
2) It is getting ever easier to record anything, or everything, that you see. This opens fascinating possibilities-and alarming ones.”
This will all change in the future, now that the media and privacy advocates are starting to ask questions. Law enforcement security cameras clearly have many benefits to our society, and with the right policies in place the negative aspects will pale in comparison. Works Cited Kelly, Heather. " After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras. " CNN.com - "The 'Casino'" Cable News Network, 26 Apr. 2013.