First of all, law enforcement cameras are thought to be an invasion of privacy not only because people are being filmed without their consent, but also worried to how much power is used to have them filmed, people don’t know what happens or what they do with those videos. Although this is true,In the article, “Surveillance …show more content…
Erin Moriarty from the Operations Center of the Office of Emergency Communications in Chicago asked that same question to Chicago Police Commander John Lewin in the article “Surveillance Cameras and the Right to Privacy.” Lewin stated, “No, As with any technology, none of these things are the magic bullet - pardon the pun. They are just going to be another tool in the toolbox to help officers do their jobs." In arguing this claim, Lewin argues that cameras are not capable to some of the work police officer can do. For instance, they can not physically capture the criminal like law enforcement would do (Surveillance) …show more content…
For some people this can be a good thing for others it's simply a bad idea. There was a case that involved bombing in a public place. The article, “After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras”on CNN states, “ facial-recognition software and other technologies are making security-camera images more valuable to law enforcement.” In other words, Boston's Police asserts that facial-recognition can be one of the most useful tools the cameras has (After). It was the most easiest and fastest way to find a person. This would not be used on everyone just the