argumentative essay are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy

Body cameras help monitor police but can invade people’s privacy

Assistant Professor of Media Law and Policy, University of Oregon

Disclosure statement

Bryce C. Newell received funding for some parts of this research from the University of Washington's Information School and the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

View all partners

In the course of their work, police officers encounter people who are intoxicated, distressed, injured or abused. The officers routinely ask for key identifying information like addresses, dates of birth and driver’s license numbers, and they frequently enter people’s homes and other private spaces.

With the advent of police body cameras, this information is often captured in police video recordings – which some states’ open-records laws make available to the public.

Starting in the summer of 2014, as part of research on police adoption of body-worn cameras within two agencies in Washington state, I spent hours riding in patrol vehicles , hanging out at police stations, interviewing officers , observing police officers while they worked and administering surveys .

One of the most striking findings of my study was about the unintended effects of these cameras and associated laws. Body-worn cameras and freedom of information laws do enable oversight and accountability of the police. But, as I outline in my new book, “ Police Visibility: Privacy, Surveillance, and the False Promise of Body-Worn Cameras ,” they also hold the potential to force sensitive data and stressful episodes in private citizens’ lives into public view, easily accessible online.

Accountability, with visibility

Body-worn cameras have been issued to police all over the United States , with a patchwork of regulations and laws governing their operation and the video they record. The goal is often to make officers accountable for their actions, though their effectiveness at doing so has been questioned .

Opinions and laws also differ on when body camera footage should be made public . And, even when it is, interpreting what the footage depicts can be complicated . Nevertheless, the cameras have the potential to make police work, including misconduct and police violence , more visible.

I found that within weeks of adopting body-worn cameras, the police agencies I studied began receiving requests under local and state public records laws, seeking all of the footage recorded. In response, the departments began to release the videos, under the provisions of state public records laws with few – if any – redactions to protect citizens’ sensitive personal information. The primary instigator of these initial requests posted the disclosed video to a publicly accessible YouTube channel .

One patrol officer told me, “I personally would never provide my personal information to an officer with a camera. It all ends up on the internet. That is wrong and unsafe.”

‘Say hi to the camera, honey!’

One winter afternoon in 2015, I accompanied a Spokane, Washington police officer on a domestic violence call. After parking by the curb, we walked up the driveway to where a man was standing.

The officer I was shadowing turned on his body camera and informed the man that he had activated his camera and would be recording their conversation.

The man we had approached yelled down the driveway to his wife, “Smile and say hi to the camera, honey!”

The woman had allegedly taken a metal baseball bat and smashed in the man’s face across his eye. He had blood leaking from his eye and eyebrow and rolling down his nose and cheek. His eyebrow looked caved in; the bone was obviously broken. After a few minutes of questioning, the medics arrived and quickly rushed him to the ambulance.

The officer and I followed them to the ambulance, where the officer continued to question the injured man, seeking to get a statement or confession out of him on camera. His body camera continued to record everything in front of the officer, including the man and the inside of the ambulance.

When the ambulance left, we entered the home, where the woman was being questioned. The officer continued to record in case the woman might offer her own statement or confession.

Although much of what was recorded on the officer’s camera in this case occurred outside, within view of neighbors and others present on the street, it still was a traumatic, personal and embarrassing moment in the lives of both victim and alleged offender.

But the fact that a camera recorded it made these events much more visible, to a wider audience, for a longer time. Officers sometimes showed each other videos at the end of their shifts while writing reports, often to simply decompress after a long shift or bond with their colleagues. In addition, the footage could potentially become public under state open records laws at the time it was recorded.

‘Maybe I should stop drinking’

On another winter evening, I found myself standing inside another couple’s living room with two officers as the man and woman, separately, tried to explain why the wife had called 911 and accused the husband of threatening violence.

The husband was drunk – and drinking continuously while talking to the officer, who was wearing a camera on his chest. He told a rambling story about how much trouble his wife had caused him over the years, musing that perhaps he should leave her and move on, but perhaps he loves her. On the other hand, he said, she had caused him nothing but grief and made his life miserable. Moments later, he continued, “Maybe what I really should do is stop drinking,” and he took another sip from his beer can.

Even if he had been sober, he probably would not have realized that this conversation might end up on YouTube with virtually unlimited visibility. If he had, would he or his wife have let the police into their house in the first place? Would the wife even have called to report her husband’s threats?

There are potential social costs to deploying body-worn cameras, including possible invasions of privacy when sensitive moments are recorded or made public, and increasing police surveillance of communities already subjected to heightened police attention. When body cameras are introduced, careful attention to existing laws and policies, including public records laws, can help minimize harm to the public while increasing the transparency of police work.

As I discuss in my book , one possible solution could be redacting personal information about victims, witnesses, bystanders and even suspects, as long as it is not related to law enforcement officer conduct. Other options include creating independent oversight groups to review footage before its release, giving victims and their families access to footage, and erring on the side of nondisclosure when body cameras record in private spaces or in particularly sensitive contexts.

I believe these are possible without limiting public access to procedural information about how officers conduct their activities, to enable oversight and accountability.

Just as videos of Black people’s deaths at the hands of the police should be treated with more care , the decision to make police video that captures sensitive and traumatic moments of people’s lives public should be a measured and considered one. In my view, there is little need to force civilians onto the public stage simply because they are contacted by a police officer.

[ The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly .]

• Privacy law
• Open government
• Freedom of information
• Public records
• Police videos
• Body worn cameras
• Body cameras
• body-worn cameras
• Privacy laws

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Technical Assistant - Metabolomics

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

Public Security Cameras and Privacy

Introduction.

Some refer to law enforcement cameras as a valuable tool in crime reduction while others consider it as an invasion of their privacy. Either way, they may be right. In general terms, Hyatt (46) describes law enforcement cameras as tiny cameras that police officers clip on their uniforms or place on the street strategically to record both video and audio as they go about their daily duties. Indeed, the last decade has seen a very rapid adoption of this technology. By 2007, London had already installed more than 4 million cameras in the streets. This technology has good results and side effects just like any other technology.

There are two factions, each trying to justify their opinion with some minority caught in between the debate, and both points of view make sense to them. People applauding this technology argue that contrary to those who see the technology as an inversion of their privacy, the technology has helped in reducing police brutality that had been on a steady rise. Generally, the technology has also helped in reducing crimes, which was its major aim. People who see it as a serious invasion into their private life basically oppose the use of these cameras because they invade their private life. Therefore, this paper will elaborate on the arguments advanced by each side of the debate on this issue. However, with a proper policy to guide their usage, these cameras can help reduce crimes while also avoiding the inversion of people’s privacy (Goold and Daniel, 31).

Law enforcement cameras are majorly intended to reduce the rate of crime and cannot be said to be an inversion of privacy. The cameras have assisted in the reduction of crime in a number of ways, which dispute the argument that the cameras are simply an inversion of people’s privacy. First, they are directed at scanning such parts as number plates of cars which are never private, and are in any case meant for car identification. Moreover, the images that these cameras capture can enable police officers to gain access to the driving records, address and even the social security data in case the driver had been previously arrested. Such capabilities are not ill intended. They are meant to enable security authorities to easily mount a trail on stolen vehicles and retrieve them within the shortest period possible at the smallest effort. They can also be used to arrest the suspects involved in the crime. Similarly, these cameras may apply the same method in identifying the locations of missing people and even fugitives. For instance, since early 2013, when the government installed the cameras in Charlotte County, authorities have managed to arrest more than twenty four suspects with the assistance of the camera by the end of January 2014 (Elias 1).

These were the major reasons that persuaded technologist to develop this kind of security system. If at all these were the genuine reasons as to why the technology was invented, we must admit that they intended well for people. Nevertheless, with the development of this technology, the implementation phase has seen a lot of mixed reactions, some in support of it while others bluntly oppose the installation of cameras saying that the device would expose much of what they perceive to be private (Maverick 1).

Those who are in support of this technology argue that it will lead to a reduction in police brutality. This would be possible because the offices, fully aware that the camera is recording whatever they are doing or saying, would obviously restrain themselves from undesirable actions. In the long-run, this technology would prevent crime in two facets, which are far from targeting people’s privacy. Firstly, it will serve as a barrier to collusions of some rogue officers with criminals. Secondly, it will assist in capturing real time commission of a crime, which the prosecutors can use as evidence in a court of law (Maverick 1).

Looking at it critically, the issue of invading privacy should not even arise because the cameras are mostly common in public places. The presence of these cameras is normally limited to public places such as schools, malls, among other public places. They majorly serve to give these places a sense of security and not invasion into privacy. The logic behind those against opposing cameras is based on the argument that they invade privacy because these cameras are always put in public areas. They stress this point saying that in the public, it is not only these cameras recording. The same is done by people through their cell phones or even digital cameras. This begs the question as to why security cameras are the only source of concern. These cameras also discourage criminals from disrupting members of the public for fear of getting arrested. Other than this, they see no need for a person to worry even if the cameras were to be installed in their homes if at all they had nothing to hide. The only people supposed to get worried about the cameras are the suspects who have been dodging the security officers (Matchett 200).

In the same line of thinking, this group believe that by government watching people, it does not do it because they are idle, but for the greater good of its people. They say that the government has more compelling and important things to do. If the government would have no good intention in monitoring their citizens, probably they would not be doing it. The surveillance cameras would also allow the government to watch over people selectively allowing the authorities to concentrate on monitoring areas with high prevalence of crimes. This will even reduce the cost of providing security to citizens because it would be possible to narrow down to selected areas and at the same time reduce the manner of officers on the ground.

Another view is that these cameras provide the best opportunity to counter terrorism and snap the suspected terrorists. A good example is Boston marathon tragedy where the cameras helped a lot in revealing the identity of the suspect. Since some of these security gadgets have the capabilities of detecting presence of chemical and biological reagents, there is a possibility that they may help neutralize many attempts of terrorism. The government would also be able to closely monitor outlawed drug deals that are common on the streets. Additionally, security officials would be able to reduce the rate of property and violent crimes within the streets with the support of the cameras. This would be possible because these cameras can sense gunshots and immediately alert security authorities to respond. For instance, these cameras assisted authorities who were carrying out investigations on June 2006 car bombing attempt in London to identify the suspects in the shortest time possible. The same cameras also complement the efforts of investigation unit, on the bus and train explosions in July 2005 in London that left more than fifty people dead, to apprehend the suspects. With such contributions to the security, the cameras are more the enhancing of security rather than inversion of people’s privacy (Horng, 1).

On the other end, there are also cogent views as to the opposition of these security cameras. Conser et al (9) defines privacy as the right to be left alone. Those who oppose the use of these security cameras recognize the fact that privacy is the most comprehensive and valued right among those who claim to be civilized. The argument is that even the officers’ privacy would be at risk because the device would be able to record their private conversations, especially cameras that are mounted on their uniforms. Besides, their bosses could also use such cameras to supervise them. The use of these cameras is invasion of the privacy of people for the inherent reason that people need their privacy. No one would like other people to watch over them while they are going about their duties.

Those opposing the installation of these cameras also argue that the security system may give the government more power than the people. So, the single fact that the state has powers to watch over their citizens is not also justification for them to do it. With this, the government would not only monitor the movement of citizens while riding on the back of security provision, but also to persuade, discriminate and even worse off, blackmail the public. Keenan (17) notes that even in the past, the government of the USA had been misusing its surveillance power. In supporting his statement, he gives an example of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 after government had branded him as a dangerous person. According to him, this was pure government blackmail of the public. Eventually this led to social unrest within the country, which could have been more gravy if there were clips showing how the assassins killed this gentleman.

The opponents of the law enforcement cameras also say that installation of cameras in social places is an infringement of their civil liberty. Over and above the sighted reasons for rejection of these security devices, they stress that these cameras do not prevent crimes but simply report. In their argument, the issue of cameras reporting a crime has no relationship with crime prevention or reduction whatsoever. Cameras only make people feel safer, which is just and illusion of being secure. For this reason, they say that people can be safe without even the presence of roving cameras. They insist that the police officers are capable of protecting the citizens without necessarily watching over them because security agencies have been successfully doing it in the past (Smith and Sulanowski 231).

Further, these cameras are very costly to purchase and install, a single one going for over thirty thousand US dollars and would incur more money in their maintenance. This would compel the government to budget for the installation and repairs of these security gadgets. Perhaps, that is why they see the purchase of these cameras as a total waste of public money that the government could redirect to finance more developmental projects. In the long-run, these opponents project a scenario where police officers and cameras would increase in numbers to levels that may lead to a police state, an extreme situation that is not desirable at all (Matchett 205).

Flipp (105) states that the government itself has prohibited secret surveillance whether at home or in the public places. This alone serves to disapprove the installation of cameras for the reason that they go against the law, laws that they are to protect and help citizens abide to. The government will be contradicting itself saying that surveillance is illegal while at the same time continuing running cameras in the streets. While the government claims that surveillance is illegal, there still exist some secret programs that the government has purposely designed for surveillance. According to Horng (1), the public can only challenge such programs upon their discovery. The courts are always in support of the government invasion of privacy by coining a theory, and now precedence in many courts that mere surveillance can create to tangible harm. Therefore, these cameras are harm to the very constitutional principles that they are to help guard (Flipp 106).

A section of people dismiss the use of these cameras on the grounds that there is no clear legal framework on their usage. Firstly, there exists no policy that determines how long the information should be held in the database. At the present, there are cameras that automatically delete the information after every 72 hours and only retain those recordings that officers are using. There are also some databases that have records dating up to three years ago. It is a clear indication that there is lack of proper policy framework to regulate the usage of this data. Recently, there was a confusion among the public when department of homeland security wanted to create its own database corroborating the information from all other security agencies that use this security system. But they abandoned this plan after reconsidering their decision against the criticism of the public (Elias 1).

From the discussion, it is evident that the use of law enforcement is for the well being of all people by making the law enforcement personnel be a step ahead of suspects. However, there still exist some loopholes in the implementation phase of this technology that the government can easily address through proper and stringent policies. One, this technology should be designed in such a manner that the officers in the field can not manipulate, or rather edit the contents of what the camera has recorded. Two, the technologist should design these cameras in a manner that does not support mass surveillance of public, ensuring that it prevents possible capture of embarrassing situations and leakage of titillating clips. Lastly, the government should make the public aware that the cameras are used only for security purposes and create a balance between costs of these security devices and their benefits in terms of crime reduction. With the proper policy to guide their usage, these cameras can help reduce crimes while also avoid the inversion of people’s privacy.

Argumentative

Book report, environment, evidence-based practice, informative, please notice.

Some text in the modal.

Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy

Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy? This paper aims to answer this question. It reviews the pros and cons of law enforcement cameras in public places. It argues that benefits of surveillance cameras outweigh their negative effects.

Introduction

My reasons for claiming that there is no invasion of privacy, the evidence supporting law enforcement cameras in public spaces, some concerns raised in opposing views, the warrant.

Bibliography

Law enforcement cameras continue to raise ethical issues, despite the fact that they limit criminal activities in public areas. Despite the existence of the positive outcomes of law enforcement cameras in law enforcement, people still think that the cameras are an invasion of privacy. A rise in the number of citizens protesting against the cameras heightens the need to understand the claims of privacy invasion.

In this regard, this paper endeavors to demonstrate why I do not agree with claims that law enforcement cameras are an invasion of privacy.

Stanley and Steinhardt1 assert that law enforcement cameras only capture what is otherwise in the public domain; thus, they are an extension of actual police patrols on the streets. I claim that law enforcement cameras keep people safe and should be encouraged as a technology that aids in the furtherance of law and order.

Governments and local authorities all around the world beefed up their security measures after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, which was one of the main reasons for installing law enforcement cameras. Other than terrorism threats, societies are facing challenges in community law and order enforcement.

Therefore, there is a need to apply technology to overcome resource constraints and enhance policing work. Mikhail and Wicker 2 support this reasoning by arguing that it makes perfect sense to support the installation of cameras in public places for law enforcement purposes.

The police use evidence for prosecution; thus, they rely on witnesses to offer evidence in the courts. Cameras act as witnesses by showing details of incidents at specific times and places. Thus, cameras protect police officers against suits that offenders may raise as part of their defense.

Moreover, law enforcement cameras are merely tools; if citizens require the protection of their privacy, then a law can be legislated to provide restrictions on the placement of cameras. The question of privacy invasion through the use of law enforcement cameras is misplaced. Simmons 3 agrees that in reality, those concerned should look at the legality of the cameras and seek to fight the law in areas where they feel aggrieved.

Once again, evidence confirms that law enforcement cameras used by police and other law officers are only available in public places. In any case, if the use of the cameras was in designated private places, then the defendants could easily dismiss subsequent evidence presented in such a manner. It is wrong for people to expect private treatment in public areas.

In fact, law enforcement cameras allow everyone to use public areas mutually by deterring criminals and other offenders from denying others the freedom to express themselves as they would wish. What matters in law is not the camera itself, but the evidence collected to allow the prosecutors to accomplish their work and keep offenders at bay. 4

Those who oppose the use of law enforcement cameras are worried about the increased use of digital technology, which allows law enforcement officers to hold and share images for long. Slobogin 5 maintains that in general, more people today can view surveillance footage and make different inferences, which then raise questions about potential future uses of stored public footage of individuals.

While this claim is legitimate, it still fails to water down the argument that cameras are good for public safety and should be there to stay. As argued before, the use of the camera footage is subject to what the law provides. Moreover, the camera digital footage stored for a long time is compared to a person’s memory that can be used as part of the prosecution or defense evidence long after an incident being addressed in a court occurred.

People do not stay in private places all the time; they go out and interact with other people in public places. Therefore, the public nature of law enforcement cameras warrants the acceptance of this paper’s thesis that the cameras are harmless in terms of privacy invasion. If one needs to remain anonymous, then they can obscure their images when in public and the public cameras cannot capture their accurate details.

When the government announces that it is going to place surveillance cameras in public places, it does so to comply with existing laws and to provide a critical service to its citizens. In such circumstances, anyone is forewarned. Going to a public place afterwards amounts to voluntary submission; at this point, no one should go ahead to claim invasion of privacy.

It is the same thing with a driving permit; the state does not force anyone to drive, but one needs a driver’s permit to operate a motor vehicle. According to Posner 6 , the process of acquiring and renewing licenses requires voluntary disclosure of private information.

In summing up my argument, I point out that the loss of individual privacy when a person is in public due to the presence of law enforcement cameras is unfounded. Evidence and societal needs warrant the use of these cameras.

Arguments carried in this paper demonstrate that just as people have learned to live with voluntary disclosure of personal information to obtain social services and comply with regulations, they should also learn to agree voluntarily to the existence of public cameras used by law enforcers. In the end, a society where individuals can access public spaces without fear is greater than an assumed loss of privacy.

Lisovich, Mikhail A, and Stephen B Wicker. “Privacy Concerns in Upcoming Residential and Commercial Demand-Response Systems.” IEE Proceedings on Powers Systems 1, no. 1 (2008): 1-10.

Posner A. Richard. “Privacy, Surveillance, and Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 75 (2008): 245-260.

Simmons, Ric. “Why 2007 is not like 1984: A Broader Perspective on Technology’s Effect on Privacy and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97, no. 2 (2007): 531-568.

Slobogin, Christopher. “Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places and the Right to Anonymity.” Missisipi Law Review 72 (2002): 214-312.

Stanley, Jay, and Barry Steinhardt. Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society. ACLU Technology and Liberty Program, 2003.

• Jay Stanley and Barry Steinhardt, Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society ([n.p]: ACLU Technology and Liberty Program, 2003), pp. 3-5.
• Mikhail A Lisovich and Stephen B Wicker, ‘Privacy Concerns in Upcoming Residential and Commercial Demand-response Systems’, IEE proceedings on powers systems , 1 (2008), p. 10.
• Ric Simmons, ‘Why 2007 is not Like 1984: A Broader Perspective on Technology’s Effect on Privacy and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97, no. 2 (2007), pp. 532-35.
• Ibid, p. 540.
• Christopher Slobogin, ‘Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places and the Right to Anonymity’, Missisipi Law Review 72 (2003) p. 216.
• Richard A. Posner, ‘Privacy, Surveillance, and Law’, University of Chicago Law Review , 75 (2008), p. 249.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 10). Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy. https://studycorgi.com/law-enforcement-cameras-are-an-invasion-of-privacy/

"Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy." StudyCorgi , 10 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/law-enforcement-cameras-are-an-invasion-of-privacy/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy'. 10 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy." January 10, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/law-enforcement-cameras-are-an-invasion-of-privacy/.

StudyCorgi . "Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy." January 10, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/law-enforcement-cameras-are-an-invasion-of-privacy/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy." January 10, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/law-enforcement-cameras-are-an-invasion-of-privacy/.

This paper, “Law Enforcement Cameras are an Invasion of Privacy”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: June 8, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Security Cameras Make Us Feel Safe, but Are They Worth the Invasion?

Internet cameras like Amazon’s Ring come at a high cost to our privacy.

By Brian X. Chen

Brian X. Chen has covered consumer technology for The Times for more than a decade. He is rebooting his column to focus on the societal implications of the tech we use.

I have always been fascinated by webcams that watch for anything that moves. When I lived in a no-frills neighborhood in San Francisco a few years ago, my camera witnessed all flavors of urban crime , from amateur fireworks shows to street fights. After I moved to the suburbs, my camera became a nature documentarian of the local fauna, like the deer that devour my rosebushes the instant they bloom.

Only recently did I force myself to weigh the potential privacy costs of this seemingly innocuous surveillance gadget against the benefits I was gaining from it — and I decided to unplug my camera.

That’s because San Francisco, long a capital of progressivism and a haven for techies, is about to embark on a citywide surveillance experiment that privacy experts warn could set a dangerous precedent. It signifies an important moment in which anyone who owns a security camera, including popular devices like Amazon’s Ring and Google’s Nest Cam, should pause to reflect on some critical questions: What are we actually getting from these cameras? What are we giving away? Are the trade-offs worth it?

First, let me explain what’s happening in San Francisco. This week, the city will put into effect its new camera ordinance , which is aimed at helping the police investigate crimes. The legislation, crafted by the city’s mayor, London Breed, gives the police the right to request access to the live footage of privately owned internet cameras.

In the past, the police could request recorded footage from the owners of internet cameras, or they could ask the tech companies for the data. The police say having access to live footage will enable them to respond to crimes happening in real time.

After more than a dozen interviews with privacy experts, academics, representatives of tech companies and the authors of the legislation, I’ve concluded that the ordinance’s near-term impact on consumer privacy will be minimal because of limits in the technology. But the implications of the increasingly tightknit relationship between tech corporations and government agencies should make us seriously assess how we use our cameras — so that we can protect our privacy in the long term.

San Francisco’s camera ordinance serves as an important lens through which to examine these questions and the current debate surrounding surveillance.

Proponents of the camera program say the goal is to make the public safer. Officials in the mayor’s office cite examples like the city’s Western Addition district, where shootings were rampant in the 1990s but dropped after the installation of city-owned cameras in the mid-2000s . They also point to cases in which cameras have led to crimes being solved, as in San Jose, Calif., where surveillance footage helped the police identify a group accused of robbing a bakery in August.

“This is another tool to address significant public safety challenges,” said Parisa Safarzadeh, the mayor’s press secretary. “We want to hold those who break the law accountable.”

Opponents of the ordinance, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say research has shown that cameras do little to reduce crime. A study from New York University , for one, found that cameras installed in two privately owned apartment complexes in New York City were an ineffective crime deterrent.

Matt Guariglia, a policy analyst at the foundation, which publicly protested the legislation before the city’s Board of Supervisors approved it in a 7-to-4 vote, said San Francisco’s ordinance posed threats to consumer privacy. Although the legislation requires the police to get permission from camera owners before viewing live footage, he said, the police have been able to obtain Ring recordings directly from Amazon.

A Ring spokeswoman confirmed that the company provided camera data to law enforcement when required by court orders, and that it had provided footage to the police in extreme cases, like kidnappings, without a court order.

The San Francisco ordinance will probably not have an immediate effect on many people’s cameras. That’s because the most popular devices like Ring and Nest Cam lack a software feature enabling a police officer to tap into a camera to view its live footage. (According to my conversations with the mayor’s office, the authors of the legislation were unaware of this limitation.)

It’s unclear whether the tech companies will eventually design such a feature. Amazon and Google say they don’t have plans to do so.

More immediately, the San Francisco Police Department will be able to request live access to cameras owned by some businesses.

But several privacy experts warned against being complacent. Now that there is legislative language allowing the police to request live access to camera technology, the concern is that the police will put pressure on the tech companies to cooperate.

“These companies are incredibly eager to work with law enforcement and develop features they would like,” Mr. Guariglia said. “If the San Francisco Police Department came to Amazon tomorrow and said would you mind creating a ‘share live feed’ feature, it would not surprise me in the least if Amazon complied.”

Shoshana Zuboff , the author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” warned that San Francisco had voluntarily created an environment that fused government power and private power. Going forward, as long as the government depends on the tech companies, there will be no laws to stop this data collection, she said.

“That state of fusion — that’s the day when America becomes more like China,” she said.

So where does that leave us, the camera owners? What do cameras do for us, and what should we do with them if there are long-term concerns about privacy?

It helps to look at the data. Some of the most comprehensive research to date on camera surveillance found that the presence of cameras led to a small reduction in crime. The study, led by a team of researchers at City University of New York, Northeastern University and Cambridge University, was a 40-year systemic review of the effects of closed-circuit television networks on crime trends in countries like Britain and South Korea. Overall, crime decreased 13 percent in areas with CCTV.

Cameras, according to the study, were effective as a deterrent for crimes such as car burglaries and property theft, but they had no significant effect on violent crimes.

Alana Saulnier, a professor of sociology and a criminologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, suggested looking at it this way: A person committing a home burglary is more likely to be conscious of a surveillance camera than two people fighting outside a nightclub.

“A camera probably isn’t going to be a deterrent to someone who is not going to be thinking rationally, if they were willing to be going through that kind of violence in the first place,” she said. “That’s why it could be useful in some contexts and less useful in other contexts.”

So a security camera could act as a somewhat useful deterrent if your main goal is to prevent property crime, like break-ins and porch thefts. But if your goal is to keep yourself safe in a neighborhood with violent crime, it probably won’t help much. (It might, however, help the police investigate a crime.)

If you’re worried that the police might gain access to your camera without your permission, there are ways to navigate those concerns, like using an offline camera that records to a physical storage drive or a picture card in your home, said Chris Gilliard, a community college professor who has been an outspoken critic of surveillance technologies.

“There’s a stark difference between putting yourself and your community in the Amazon web, and having cameras where you fully control the footage,” he said.

In addition, you can avoid using cameras to monitor indoor spaces like bedrooms, and you can disable their microphones.

As for me, I am more concerned about how quickly our tech could change than I am about the deer munching on my flowers. I’ll plug my camera in when I leave the house for longer stints, like when I go on vacation. The rest of the time, though, I’ll keep it unplugged, sitting on my window sill as a visual deterrent for porch pirates but not offering the police anything to snoop on.

Brian X. Chen is the lead consumer technology writer for The Times. He reviews products and writes Tech Fix , a column about the social implications of the tech we use. More about Brian X. Chen

Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Disregard of civil liberties, infringement of the right to privacy, total surveillance, dara breach concerns, opposing views, works cited.

Freedom has always been taken as one of the central values peculiar to human society. It preconditioned the formation of democratic states that cultivate this concept and consider it the fundamental idea for the further rise. At the same time, privacy can be viewed as a dimension of freedom as it means the ability to avoid undesired attention and remain free in actions. That is why the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy for all citizens regardless of their race, gender, or social status. Unfortunately, today, because of the sophistication of the modern world and international relations, the ideas mentioned above are often taken as inferior to the concepts of security and control. The use of surveillance or law enforcement cameras is viewed as an effective way to create a safe environment and protect citizens; however, it should be taken as a rude intrusion in individuals’ private life and invasion of the right of privacy.

Proponents of the extensive use of surveillance systems emphasize the fact that the state and its citizens face multiple threats every day, and these cameras are the only way to guarantee protection. The central idea of this approach is the early detection of crime, monitoring of public locations to minimize risks, and search for suspects or criminals by using innovative solutions (Schuck 42). The fast evolution of technologies and their improvement mean the broad use of specific cameras that provide security services or police with an opportunity to trace people’s movements and remain informed about their actions. The effectiveness of this method in reducing crime remains disputable; however, there are multiple factors evidencing its unethical nature and the high risk of intrusion in the private life of people.

The first argument against the use of law enforcement cameras is the disregard of basic civil liberties and the dangerous precedent that emerges due to this practice. Freedom and privacy are core ideas for the Western democratic society, and they form the mentalities of people. However, today, there is an attempt to reduce the importance of these aspects by employing the ideas of security and safety (Richards 1934). The state and authorities use individuals’ fears to introduce surveillance systems and make them an integral part of people’s lives. The disregard of this threat will create a precedent meaning that the fundamental rights of people can be infringed in the future to achieve certain goals.

In such a way, law enforcement cameras disregard the Constitution and its postulates stating that the right to privacy is guaranteed to all people living in the state. Although at the moment only public places are equipped with these devices, the fact remains. People cannot feel relaxed or free because of the high risk of being recorded by cameras placed in various locations (Richards 19). When people are in public, they already experience a certain amount of privacy loss; however, it is their own conscious decision, while speaking about cameras, citizens do not have an opportunity to choose whether to be supervised or not. That is why it can be viewed as a rude infringement of their fundamental liberties.

Discussing the problem of law enforcement cameras, it is also important to consider the global context and the possible outcomes associated with the further evolution of this method. Today, a significant number of public places are equipped with surveillance devices collecting and transferring data (Schuck 43). However, by accepting this practice, people can also accept the idea of total surveillance and make it legitimate, which will result in more significant infringement of rights and liberties (Richards 1936). That is why it is vital to emphasize the unacceptability of governmental control of different aspects of people’s lives without their permission or specific reasons for it. Otherwise, humanity can evidence the development of a dystopian scenario with the constant control of all individuals’ actions and movements.

Finally, the development of law enforcement cameras gives rise to data breach concerns. The existing systems allow for constant surveillance with unlimited capabilities, including the collection of personal information and characteristics that make individuals unique. It means that this sort of data can be stored and processed by authorities for different purposes. However, there is a high chance of mistakes or breaches of data caused by malefactors or hackers who need personal information to commit a certain crime (Schuck 55). There are multiple examples of such scenarios, which proves the existence of vulnerabilities and insider threats peculiar to the system. (IFSEC Global). For this reason, law enforcement cameras might also precondition the loss of personal data or its use by third parties to perform illegal actions.

It should be noted that regardless of these arguments, there are still multiple adherers to the discussed idea. They emphasize the existence of numerous threats, such as the terrorist one, and the need for risk management tools that can help to avoid accidents and protect citizens (Robertiello 45). In accordance with this vision, law enforcement cameras are considered a potent strategy to achieve this goal as they provide up-to-date data about individuals in public places and help to trace their movements (Robertiello 46). Moreover, they can be employed to find wanted criminals and prevent them from causing harm to people surrounding them.

However, the relevance of this reasoning can be doubted. Cameras might only deter criminal activity and not prevent it, which means that they record personal activities just in case, or to provide evidence to prove the guilt of a malefactor. However, it means that the threat to citizens still remains high as surveillance systems cannot respond to it, they just record information. Moreover, cameras are not capable of following rules and differentiating between actions of law-obedient citizens and criminals. That is why their intervention in the private life of people is not selective, and all people suffer from it. At the same time, the effectiveness of risk mitigation and management remains low or disputable.

In such a way, regarding the information provided above, it is possible to conclude that law enforcement cameras are a rude violation of basic people’s rights and their liberties. Invasion of privacy occurs when both law-abiding persons and criminals are filmed and face the risk of a personal data breach. Regarding multiple security concerns that are offered as a justification for the further use of these systems, the problem still remains topical as people are deprived of the freedom of choice. This precedent can result in the appearance of new contradictory issues and the establishment of total control. For this reason, it is vital to discuss the problem and find appropriate solutions to avoid further deterioration of the situation.

IFSEC Global. “Role of CCTV Cameras: Public, Privacy and Protection.” IFSEC Global , 2020. Web.

Richards, Neil. “The Dangers of Surveillance.” Harvard Law Review , vol. 126, no. 17, 2013, pp. 1934-1965. Web.

Robertiello, Gina, editor. The Use and Abuse of Police Power in America: Historical Milestones and Current Controversies . ABC-CLIO, 2017.

Schuck, Amie. “Prevalence and Predictors of Surveillance Cameras in Law Enforcement: The Importance of Stakeholders and Community Factors.” Criminal Justice Policy Review , vol. 28, no. 1, 2017, pp. 41–60. Web.

• Defense Against Copyright Infringement: Case of Logik Scripting Inc
• Introduction to Business Law: Judicial Precedent
• YouTube Case: Copyright Infringement of Music and Films
• The Issue of HIV-AIDS-Positive Status Disclosure
• Macro Change at the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
• The Naturalization Act of 1790
• Anti-Discrimination Laws in the U.S.
• Human Euthanasia Should Be Allowed
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 18). Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-enforcement-cameras-as-the-basic-rights-infringement/

"Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement." IvyPanda , 18 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/law-enforcement-cameras-as-the-basic-rights-infringement/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement'. 18 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement." February 18, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-enforcement-cameras-as-the-basic-rights-infringement/.

1. IvyPanda . "Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement." February 18, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-enforcement-cameras-as-the-basic-rights-infringement/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Law Enforcement Cameras as the Basic Rights Infringement." February 18, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/law-enforcement-cameras-as-the-basic-rights-infringement/.

What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?

Published March 2002

The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance

Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life. Fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more. The use of sophisticated systems by police and other public security officials is particularly troubling in a democratic society. In lower Manhattan, for example, the police are planning to set up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view thousands of video cameras around the downtown – and police-operated cameras have proliferated in many other cities across America in just the past several years.

Although the ACLU has no objection to cameras at specific, high-profile public places that are potential terrorist targets, such as the U.S. Capitol, the impulse to blanket our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is a bad idea. Here are four reasons why:

1. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video surveillance is the threat of terrorist attacks. But suicide attackers are clearly not deterred by video cameras – and may even be attracted to the television coverage cameras can ensure – and the expense of an extensive video surveillance system such as Britain’s – which sucks up approximately 20 percent of that nation’s criminal justice budget – far exceeds the limited benefits that the system may provide in investigating attacks or attempted attacks after the fact ( see fact sheet on Surveillance Cameras and the Attempted London Attacks ).

The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. “Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences,” criminologists found in one study , “reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre.” A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study , also for the British government).

In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that “monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing,” have found in experiments that “after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels.”

2. CCTV IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. There are five ways that surveillance-camera systems are likely to be misused:

Criminal abuse Surveillance systems present law enforcement “bad apples” with a tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a top-ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police databases to gather information on patrons of a gay club. By looking up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and researching the backgrounds of the vehicles’ owners, he tried to blackmail patrons who were married. Imagine what someone like that could do with a citywide spy-camera system.

Institutional abuse Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire law enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends. That is especially prone to happen in periods of social turmoil and intense conflict over government policies. During the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, for example, the FBI – as well as many individual police departments around the nation – conducted illegal operations to spy upon and harass political activists who were challenging racial segregation and the Vietnam War. This concern is especially justified since we are in some respects enduring a similar period of conflict today.

Abuse for personal purposes Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press , for example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.

Discriminatory targeting Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. In Great Britain, camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were operated, “Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population.”

Voyeurism Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the researchers found. Many incidents have been reported in the United States. In one, New York City police in a helicopter supposedly monitoring the crowds at the 2004 Republican Convention trained an infrared video camera on an amorous couple enjoying the nighttime “privacy” of their rooftop balcony.

3. THE LACK OF LIMITS OR CONTROLS ON CAMERAS USE Advanced surveillance systems such as CCTV need to be subject to checks and balances. Because the technology has evolved so quickly, however, checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses outlined above don’t exist. Two elements in particular are missing:

A consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems. Unfortunately, history has shown that surveillance technologies put in place for one purpose inevitably expand into other uses. And with video technology likely to continue advancing, the lack of any clear boundaries for what CCTV systems should be able to do poses a significant danger.

In just the past several years, many cities, including Washington, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, have for the first time installed significant numbers of police-operated cameras trainined on public spaces. And once these surveillance facilities are put in place, police departments will be in a position to increase the quality of its technology and the number of its cameras – and will inevitably be tempted or pressured to do so. Do we want the authorities installing high-resolution cameras that can read a pamphlet from a mile away? Cameras equipped to detect wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, allowing night vision or see-through vision? Cameras equipped with facial recognition, like those that have been installed in airports and even on the streets of Tampa, Florida ? Cameras augmented with other forms of artificial intelligence, such as those deployed in Chicago ?

As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of evolving into a surveillance monster.

Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems. A societal consensus about how cameras should be used is important, but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems. Rules are needed to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators.

There have long been well-established rules governing the audio recording of individuals without their consent (there is a reason surveillance cameras never have microphones). It makes no sense that we don’t have equivalent laws for video recording.

4. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PUBLIC LIFE The growing presence of public cameras will bring subtle but profound changes to the character of our public spaces. When citizens are being watched by the authorities – or aware they might be watched at any time – they are more self-conscious and less free-wheeling. As syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum has pointed out , “knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don’t want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself.” Eventually, he warns, “people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers.” Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that people deemed to be “out of time and place” with the surroundings were subjected to prolonged surveillance.

THE BOTTOM LINE: A LACK OF PROPORTION BETWEEN BENEFITS AND RISKS Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This technology (a) has the potential change the core experience of going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and “mission creep,” and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given that, its benefits – preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none – are disproportionately small.

Related Issues

• National Security
• Privacy & Technology

Stay Informed

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Research & Reports

Police Body Camera Policies: Privacy and First Amendment Protections

Some departments have special circumstances when officers are not supposed to record. This chart pulls out policies for witnesses & victims, areas with heightened expectation of privacy, First Amendment activity, and use of facial recognition technology.

• Privacy & Free Expression

Last Updated: July 19, 2019

“Limits on Recording Witnesses and Victims,” “Limits on Recording Private Situations,” and “Limits on Recording 1st Amendment Activity ”: Some policies include restrictions on recording in circumstances with greater potential for abuse. It is valuable for police to have recordings of witness and victim statements, but recording also might make people reluctant to talk. A few policies restrict recording of First Amendment activity, such as protests and religious meetings, to avoid the possibility of targeting people based on this activity or creating a chilling effect. Other policies, however, insist on recording it, often based on a history of police abuses at protests. Most have some mention of heightened privacy expectations in places such as restrooms and locker rooms, and some provide special rules for recording inside a private home.

“Limits on Facial Recognition Technology”: Facial recognition technology has the potential to fundamentally change the nature of how body-worn camera video can be used. Technology that is either currently available or under development would allow departments to scan their databases of video footage for a particular suspect, to keep a database of the locations and movements of everyone they record, or to analyze video in real-time so an officer can identify suspects or passers-by based on pictures in police records or online. This functionality could to help find suspects faster and augment police officers’ ability to identify and remember people they encounter. Privacy advocates worry that combining BWCs with facial recognition could create an unprecedented level of intrusion into private moments and everyday activities, effectively eliminating anonymity in public. Furthermore, because individuals may not always be correctly identified, people who simply look like the intended target run the risk of being tracked or arrested. Due to these concerns, departments may wish to set limits on the application of facial recognition technology to the BWC recordings. So far, Baltimore’s is the only policy on our list to address this issue.

Download the PDF here—recommended for mobile users.

View our map and other charts.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Social Issues

Are Law Enforcement Cameras An Invasion Of Privacy Or Does Their Public Safety Value Argumentative Essay

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Social Issues , Security , Crime , Criminal Justice , Police , Bible , New York , Law

Published: 12/06/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Among the popular and most talked issues in law enforcement, issues about privacy are perhaps the most common. This is a normal thing although it cannot be considered as a good one because it should be one of the law enforcers’ responsibilities to provide an effective justice and law system to the citizens of a particular state without compromising their rights for privacy. Unfortunately, this isn’t what usually happens even in some already developed countries. There are still cases wherein individuals who have been accused for certain privacy are still being abused and this really isn’t the right thing and it isn’t supposed to happen. According to Ivan Hoffman (2001), all people, no matter what country they are in have rights to privacy. However, with the advent of technology, especially with the birth of the internet and other modern security and law enforcement gadgets, that right to privacy may soon face more attacks and other offense coming from security and law enforcement agencies. Among the best and most common example of such gadgets would be law enforcement cameras. This paper aims to present a detailed comparison between public safety value of law enforcement cameras and their possible implication on everyone’s right to privacy. The first question that pops right inside my head is whether police cameras are really effective in reducing the crime rate, especially when they are installed in places with the highest crime rates? Can they even be a factor that criminals would first consider before they commit any crime? In an article posted by Jennifer Lee (2005), she stated that in New York, the NYPD (New York Police Department) was about to install 400 more surveillance law enforcement cameras because they want to cover as many high traffic and high crime rate areas in the city through these digital videotape-based cameras. However, this could be a normal reaction or behavior that we could expect from these law enforcers because this particular implementation is their project in the first place and most likely, they will be its number one proponent. However, some citizens in New York City especially the ones who live near the places where surveillance cameras would be installed responded accordingly. What usually concern these people is the possible compromise on their privacy, which for some, could be a very big deal. In the same source by Jennifer Lee (2005), there was an example where there was a man who carried a gun and killed himself and all that the cameras were able to do was to capture the video. However, according to Tanneeru (2007), there were cases where these cameras and other gadgets could really help law enforcement agencies do their job more effectively and they used the attempted attacks of three subway trains in New York City as an example. The investigation of this case was, according to the sources, significantly hastened, thanks to these cameras. So, to answer the question whether law enforcement cameras could really make the current security and law enforcement system more effective or not, the answer, based from the sources, would be yes, cameras could be a helpful tool for law enforcers despite their potential compromise in privacy. All that the law enforcement agencies have to consider are the limitations with regards to the use of these cameras such as the proper location where they could put these gadgets so that privacy wouldn’t be an issue at all anymore.

Hoffman, Ivan. Rights of Privacy. 2001. December 2011. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/privacyrights.html. Lee, Jennifer. New York Police Wants 400 More Surveillance Cameras. May 31, 2005. December 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/nyregion/31camera.html. Tanneeru, Manav. Ring of Steel Coming to New York. CNN. August 2007. December 2011.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/01/nyc.surveillance/index.html.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2676

This paper is created by writer with

ID 283594502

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Research paper on incarceration, free essay on classism in usa, good enzymes carbohydrates and atp course work example, the dream league admission essay examples, good example of healthcare research essay, free disposable income employment rate research paper example, good report on materials and methods, stoic and aristotelian conceptions critical thinkings example, free essay on the need to correct history, example of technology factors affecting companies and employees from lack of advanced manufacturing technology literature review, research paper on why military suicide prevention fails, literary analysis the loss of the creature by percy walker essays example, conceptual frameworks of corporate social responsibility critical thinking sample, academic multisource synthesis essay civic literacy essay sample, example of why i hate history essay, example of transnational organized crime in southeast asia essay, nhlbi essays, marsha essays, shipment essays, amazon river essays, equal protection of the laws essays, forster essays, luminosity essays, spectra essays, light curve essays, prominence essays, candles essays, decliner essays, interstellar medium essays, west end essays, scotia essays, nova scotia essays, riverside essays, good health essays, conveying essays, falsification essays, respect dissertations, concept dissertations, efficacy dissertations, orientation dissertations, presence dissertations, encyclopedia dissertations.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Argument Essay on Security Cameras - Feedback / Revision

sonic_fanrs 1 / 3   Nov 27, 2009   #1 I am to write an argumentative essay on security cameras, and why I am for or against them.There are a few corrections I've made myself. Constructive criticism is appreciated. It was Super Bowl XXXV of 2001. One hundred thousand fans passed through the gates not knowing surveillance cameras were digitally checking them. The computer scanned their faces and checked and cross-referenced their images with computer files of known criminals, terrorists and con artists. This action was able to immediately identify any people who have a history of illegal activities. Those who matched the photo files in the police database were taken aside and questioned. The surveillance cameras matched nineteen criminal faces among the 100,000 fans at Super Bowl XXXV with the police database. The public was not aware that they were doing this. Many people complained and argued that this action was an invasion of privacy, but the cameras were there for their protection. The growing use of surveillance cameras in today's society has lead to several privacy issues being raised. Nowadays, surveillance cameras are used not only by the government but also by individuals and other private firms. The use of such devices has become so commonly used that it has affected our lifestyles in one way or another. Security cameras are seen almost everywhere-in shops, banks, schools, companies, hotels and even in private houses. As we all know, technology has the potential for bad along with good-while surveillance cameras help prevent crime, their use has led to the loss of many individuals' jobs. While a total banning of surveillance cameras is most likely not a viable option, I believe the use of security cameras needs to be regulated. Security Cameras help stop crime; that is not an opinion, it is a fact. On October 29th, 2009, "Footage of a security camera captures a man ... later identified as Mariano Tarracino outside a bar shooting a man in the back and then the head." Without the footage caught on camera, police say Tarracino would still be roaming city streets (The London Times). Similarly, In Oakland, California, a man was arrested for being suspected of purse snatching. The man tried to convince the police that he was nowhere near the victim, but digital video images from the Oakland train station caught him lying; the video clearly shows the man snatching the purse from a woman. He is now facing robbery charges. (cite) In fact, even (FAMOUS PERSON)(Quote of a someone good saying security cameras help?) As well as protecting our great country's citizens, newer technology in surveillance also offers better protection for businesses. Most stores have surveillance cameras watching every nook and cranny. These cameras look for people who might take a "five-finger discount", or shoplift. Surveillance cameras can catch and show evidence linking the shoplifter with their violation. If an intended shoplifter knows that there are surveillance cameras around, he or she probably will not shoplift. ("he or she" usage?) (CITE). (when one... they... them??). Speeding is a big problem that can cause some serious injuries. The government is now putting up cameras at stoplights to protect people from traffic violators. More than sixty cities in the U.S are using traffic cameras at busy intersections. Now, when a person runs a red light, or drives unreasonably fast through an intersection, they can expect a traffic citation. By installing these cameras, people are more likely to drive safe; this will inevitably lead to fewer accidents at some of the busiest intersections-it could even save lives. When one knows there are cameras around they are less likely to do something that might get them into trouble. (Does that sentence fit?) Security cameras catch criminals. They help solve crime as well prevent it. Unfortunately, the use of security cameras has replaced many individuals' jobs. Instead of hiring a guard to keep watch over a business, or an officer to observe a busy intersection or crowded area, it is easier-and more affordable-for companies to install a simple surveillance camera, rather than hire a person. Newer technology offers smaller, better, and more affordable cameras. It is cheaper to put cameras up than it is to hire more security guards and policemen. These cameras are showing up in supermarkets, stores, libraries, schools, subways, highways, and even in changing rooms. Revenues from video surveillance cameras has more than tripled from $282 million in 1990 to more than $1 billion in 2000, and it is still growing today (CITE). This growth of security cameras has directly affected employment. People are no longer needed to prevent such crimes from taking place... (finish...) The issue of public surveillance cameras being an invasion of privacy has been growing for the past few years. Many people argue that the constant video surveillance is an invasion of their privacy. The right to privacy is a common-law, which is a court made law. The U.S constitution contains no direct references to the right of privacy. An action of invasion of privacy is actually comprised of four distinct torts, which are legal wrongs. These are: intrusion upon seclusion; appropriation of name or likeness; publicity given to private life; and publicity placing the person in a false light. To sue successfully for invasion of privacy, a plaintiff only has to prove one of the four torts. Public surveillance cameras are not violating any of these torts, therefore they are not an invasion of privacy (CITE). Personal information about people is needed for them to vote, get a job, shop, check out a book, get a credit card, and many other things. Most people don't care if they have to give this information out; however, if someone else gathers that information people automatically consider it an invasion of privacy. Surveillance cameras are solely there to gather information, just like the information needed to check out a book. --------- (Maybe a more specific example) An employer suspected that his employee, Richardson, was sleeping on the job. The employer put cameras in Richardson's office and placed him under surveillance. Richardson was indeed sleeping and was fired after the boss caught him on camera. Richardson then took the company to court, arguing that the surveillance cameras were an invasion of his privacy. The judge stated that Richardson could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy, given that he was sleeping on company time, on company property, and in a place where Richardson was expected to be contacted. Surveillance cameras can be very useful. They aren't here to spy on our private lives; they are here to protect our private lives. They catch the bad guys; they catch the drunk drivers and get them off the streets; they save businesses from bad employees and shoplifters, and most of all, they protect the right to a safe, better environment for all of us.

Our expert, award-winning staff selects the products we cover and rigorously researches and tests our top picks. If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Reviews ethics statement

• Home Security

You Won't Like How Much Access Police Have to Your Home Security Cams

But you should still know what law enforcement can and can't do with your videos. Here's how requests, warrants and limitations work with cops.

Police have ways of getting home security videos, even on local storage.

Privacy is a priority for most homeowners investing in smart home security devices , especially when it comes to worries about hacking or data theft. That's why some buyers are wary of trusting cloud video storage, which places private home footage out of their hands. But another common concern is access from law enforcement. In other words, can the cops legally look at your video footage whenever they want? Would you even know if they did?

The answers depend on how police try to get home security footage, and the privacy choices that homeowners make. Let's break down what law enforcement can and can't do in three important examples then discuss some key details every user should know about.

1. Requesting cloud video in case of emergencies

In emergencies, police have a legal right to request sensitive information like camera footage.

First, law enforcement has the option, as outlined in company privacy policies, to request cloud video footage in case of an emergency. Here an "emergency" typically means a life-or-death situation or something else high-stakes, such as a kidnapping or a manhunt for a violent criminal. 

Most security companies that offer video storage in North America will field and consider these emergency requests.  Here's an explanation from Google Nest  on how it handles sharing user data with law enforcement, how it may try to narrow the scope of the request for user privacy, and how it may or may not let users know about the request. Security users may not know that their cloud videos were accessed by police.

"Before complying with a request, we make sure it follows the law and Nest's policies," the company says. "We notify users about legal demands, when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order. And if we think a request is overly broad, we'll seek to narrow it."

In these situations, law enforcement contacts the cloud video management organization directly (usually your security brand like Arlo or Ring), and requests specific video footage from an area through channels set up to allow for such requests.

Important note : While there is an option to share stored cloud videos, security companies do not generally allow law enforcement agencies to look directly through live views on cameras. Thanks to end-to-end encryption and related practices, even security companies themselves may not have this ability except in some cases of professional home monitoring.

2. Seeking a warrant for home security devices

Warrants are a way to seize even local storage on home security devices.

Another option police have to seize cam footage is via a warrant or similar court order. Warrants allow police to take home security devices and examine them, including any local storage that you have, so avoiding cloud storage won't help very much.

Typically, warrants are granted only when police can provide some evidence that a crime may have been committed on the property. It depends on the court and judge where the warrant is requested, but granting warrants is common. The warrant then becomes active and has a specific scope for where and what it applies to (which is why you should always ask to view a warrant if law enforcement wants your security cameras).

Warrants raise a further important question: Will you get your home cam back if it's seized during a legal search? That's a subject of some deliberation, although it's generally agreed from cases like these that the Fourth Amendment prevents law enforcement from holding onto digital devices or data indefinitely . Getting your camera back during a real-world seizure may not be so cut and dried.

3. Registering surveillance equipment

Security cameras can deter home break-ins with the right placement, but beware of potential problems.

There's an interesting third option for law enforcement that's been growing in popularity, especially in certain cities and states where police departments are looking to tap into smart home tech. Home security owners can register their cameras and similar devices with local police departments, letting them know there is a device at a specific property that's recording. We're seeing programs like this everywhere from Buffalo, New York's SafeCam to the Bay Area in California .

These programs vary, but there are several important points. First, this isn't the same thing as registering an alarm system via a local permit, it's specifically for video recording devices. Second, registering does not mean police can look through your cams or view any recorded footage. They know where registered residential cameras are, so they can request footage directly from participants with cameras near a crime, etc.

Finally, if you do grant permission to police to access a registered camera, they'll be able to view and copy video images, which can be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. Often, registration programs have requirements like banning you from sharing video with the media and other fine print. Keep in mind, police may still be able to seek a warrant to take cams and video footage if you deny a request via a registration program.

Can you stop police from accessing your security cam footage?

You can make it less likely by sticking to local storage instead of using cloud video storage. However, after securing a warrant or other court order, police will always have the option to take and view video files.

What about federal agencies like the FBI, NSA or ICE?

The acronyms may be more familiar and a little more frightening, but the big federal agencies are generally confined to the same requirements as your local police department. They need a warrant, specific permission from the user or a special use of the "life-threatening emergency" clause if they want to view your cam footage. That doesn't mean federal agencies always follow the law --  there are examples of ICE, HIS and other agencies breaking surveillance laws  -- but they are technically bound by the same constraints. In most cases.

"Can the NSA or FBI spy through my home camera?" is another worry we frequently see and here is where things get more unpleasant. The NSA has received surveillance carveouts through Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, an infamous bit of lawmaking that gives the FBI, CIA and NSA the power to seize electronic data when investigating a foreign intelligence or terrorism threat -- all without needing a warrant.

While controversial, Section 702 was recently renewed and expanded by the Senate , so it's not going away anytime soon. However, while we don't know a lot about how it's used, we do know that queries typically focus on internet and cell phone communications. It doesn't appear that the backdoor technologies these agencies use are seizing home security cam data, at least not in any significant way. British webcams are another story . Until we get more transparency about these surveillance methods, that's all we can say for sure.

Video doorbells make it easy to share footage, but that can come with costs as well.

Posting home security footage online

A number of security brands offer ways to post videos online through things like the Ring Neighbors app, dedicated forums, social media groups and so on. If you post a video in a public space like this, even if you're only asking for advice, then it's fair game for law enforcement to use as well.

Security brands and shifting policies on police requests

Finally, we should mention that security company policies on sharing data with cops are subject to change. Just this year, Ring decided to end its more liberal sharing program with police, limiting them to the life-or-death requests we talked about above.

What if I don't want my security cam footage stored on a cloud?

That's an option, too. While exploring your options like the top wireless or outdoor home security cameras , you may want to look at cameras without subscription plans that keep video off the cloud entirely, limiting police to warrants as a means to take footage. You can also check out cams with specific extra features, like bright LED lights .