More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of government surveillance
Surveillance cameras positive side
Pros and cons of government surveillance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of government surveillance
The pros and cons of video surveillance Canadian society may differ based on one’s personal perspective, however, generally, the advantages of video surveillance such as CCTV outweigh the disadvantages for most of us.
To begin with, the advantages of video surveillance are far more than the disadvantages. First and most importantly is that it deters crime which it gives one a sense of security which is priceless. For instance, cameras are installed in one’s house it can provide security for the household and will make them feel safe Furthermore, visible cameras in stores may prevent robbery which also provides a sense of safety for customers and the shop owner due to the fact that when criminals see the camera they are far less likely to
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.
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
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.
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
While both dash cams and body mounted cams record interactions between police and citizens, “dash cam- eras are confined to places where cars can go, which are usually public places, such as roads and parking lots. A dash camera cannot easily record inside people’s homes and other places where there is a heightened expectation of privacy”(Freund 97). Thus, allowing body mounted cameras to record the more private aspects of a law enforcement related situations. Also “unlike body-mounted cameras, CCTV cameras do not record conversations”(Freund 98).This could deter people from going to the police when they witness a crime, because they are afraid of being exposed to the person who committed the crime, giving them the information needed if they choose to retaliate. Ebi, Kevin states that “sensitive information can 't get out if it 's never recorded in the first place,” so, if there is a distress call made to the police for help, there won’t be concern that the person in distresses voice, face or the inside of their home could end up on YouTube ("Body Of
... problems in the community. Mateescu, Rosenblat, and Boyd state this concern perfectly by bringing up, “embarrassing dashcam video footage of the arrests or traffic stops of naked women, athletes, and celebrities are sometimes disseminated online, and the same privacy concerns exist about the potential for body-camera footage to be consumed as public entertainment”. The relevant data collected from the study will be used to determine if the null hypothesis of “body-cameras have no effect on a subjects willingness to communicate with the police” is true or if the hypothesis of “the use of body-worn cameras reduce the likelihood that an individual would be willing to communicate with police”. This will be done by giving the individual questions numerical data points and calculating them in order to determine the relevant information in association with the hypothesis.
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
Our current society is very much like Big Brother and 1984. The Federal government are not watching us through a telescreen but they are watching and going through our things. I know this because there is a Ted Talk that I watched about privacy and how the FBI goes through our emails, messages… etc, without our permission. To sum that up, in the article “Long Beach Police to Use 400 Cameras Citywide to Fight Crime,” in paragraphs 2 and 3 says that “Chief McDonnell is turning more than 400 cameras citywide as a solution to stop crime,... McDonnell has set up to tap into hundreds of privately owned cameras” to watch over the city and what goes around. Big Brother used telescreens to watch and hear everything, Chief McDonnell uses cameras to see everything that’s going on. My 4th teacher would most likely disagree with me, he is a LB police officer, so he knows having cameras to watch over the city is only making the city a better/ safer place.
Everyone in Canada should be photographed and fingerprinted because it would make it easier to catch criminals and over all make a law enforcement officer’s job less stressful. The reason for this would be that officers can identify who committed a crime by simply scanning a bank robber’s face from a surveillance camera then matching the photograph they took of him even 20 years ago (all because technology is moving so fast). This would not be an invasion of privacy because the police officers would not be using the face recognition from the photograph or fingerprints as a device to search through people’s personal lives, it would be used to identify criminals and would also help prevent crime from occurring. I.e. if people knew the government had a face recognizer and can instantly match fingerprints, many people would decide to rather live a crime free life and earn an honest way of living because they know that if the police are called to the crime, they can scan the fingerprints and find a match. The data base that holds this information would also help direct law enforcement to where the suspect lives, works, goes every week, the car he drive etc. which would help in quickly apprehending the culprit and bringing him to justice. An example of how useful fingerprinting technology is was when Jerry Watson was convicted of committing murder 30 years earlier. At the time (1978), the latent fingerprint from the crime scene could not give the police any leads. Technology kept advancing, which allowed the police force identify and test the fingerprint and after a few days, they identified the culprit to be Jerry Watson. Seeing that the idea of everyone being fingerprinted and photographed would solve and prevent crime in Canada, it would be a good idea to implement it into society.
Early in the 17th century was when the first modern day policing was expected to have begun. Ever since the 18th century begun, incidences of police using excess force by abusing their power have been quite common. As time progressed, these wrongful actions by police have been entitled as police brutality. Police brutality is defined as" the use of excessive force used by police dealing with public... excessive force can be either physical, verbal, and/or psychological". According to this definition, whether it be arresting someone with too much force or even uttering certain statements, can all be classified as police brutality. No individual should be victimized by police officers who use excess force that in no way deters crimes. It does nothing but bring a dire unjust society in which innocent people can feel afraid; and give those officers who are correctly doing their duties a bad reputation. Due to the dispensable, unscrupulous nature of police brutality; several measures including disciplining police officers, stricter laws(and stringent penalties), integration, as well as educating the general public about their rights, must be applied in order to extirpate the misconduct citizens should not have to face.
Closed circuit television (CCTV) is a method of situational crime prevention, primarily focussing on the criminal offence, as opposed to the offender. CCTV is based upon the principles of the classicist theory of rational offenders. Before committing a crime a rational offender is thought to question themselves about whether they will succeed and whether they will get caught. If an offender believes they are likely to be caught, they are less likely to follow through with committing the crime. CCTV intends to create a higher risk of offenders being caught and therefore reduce the opportunity for offences to occur (Coleman & Norris, 2000). The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimated that there are as many as 5.9 million CCTV cameras
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...
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.
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.