Is The Increased Presence of Public Surveillance Technology Justified

Is The Increased Presence of Public Surveillance Technology Justified

We hear it again and again. Video surveillance cameras can pick up and see what humans can’t. Over the last couple of years, surveillance technology has flourished, however it brings up a very controversial topic of whether it is cost worthy or not; some argue that video surveillance isn’t effective and that it is just wrong to spy on people while others contend that it provides an extra eye and is effective at providing security.
Installing cameras, however, can be controversial. There have been protests and legal actions surrounding camera installation, and there are a number of issues to consider before signing off on surveillance. People in impoverished and crime prone environments say that these security systems help stop violence. However people in rich and crime free environments feel these systems infringe on our basic right of privacy. “Cameras may reduce the likelihood of crime,” says Ellis Godard, a professor of sociology. “It’s a construct where people do feel safer when cameras are up. People behave themselves. They’re alerting people to what they do.” When the authorities are watching citizens, or aware they might be watched at any time; they are more self-conscious and less freewheeling. 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." Surveillance cameras, in particular are indispensable part of security. However the public may act differently when they know they are being watched and in time, the influence of the cameras watching the public could inherently change their behavior. Basically stating that if this happens then these cameras set out for our safety will shape personalities. Each technology raises its own questions, but in general surveillance raises three kinds of risks; financial cost, threats to civil liberties, and the creation of power imbalances. Londoners are under greater surveillance than anyone else in the democratic world. Nonetheless everyone from academic criminologists, to the British Home Office has studied the influence of surveillance, and has been unable to find any effect on the crime rate. At best, it has a displacement effect, that it is moving crimes from where the cameras are to where they are not “the power to watch and potentially intervene in a variety of situations, whether they be criminal or not” (Norris, 1997). However London chief inspector, Pete O’Doherty says that “roughly 8 criminals are caught a month with the help of video surveillance.” So even if some criminals move to areas where little surveillance is present people are still getting caught for crimes, thus proving their effectiveness. The key question to ask is not, “do cameras provide any potential benefit in the fight against terrorism.” The questions are, “do cameras provide enough benefit to justify there cost?” and “what are those costs?” According to a popular surveillance installation company the typical average cost to install one security camera in VA is about $1,090 - $1,240. The capital with which these criminals would have stolen would have probably been less than the amount of the camera that caught them. As noted by Doctors Brandon C. Welsh and David P Rarrington in their surveillance system research, there are several distinct outcomes possible from extensive use of surveillance systems (2003). They said that crime rates might lower because criminals are deterred by their increased surveillance. Regardless of actual observation, the threat of a watchful “eye” is often enough to stop criminal acts. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.” The public does not complain about any of this snooping and actually even seems to encourage it. John C. Dvorak seems to think that this is not much different from the public’s desire to have more surveillance cameras out in the wild “to protect people from terrorism.” He also feels that advocates from these cameras will argue, “What are you worried about? If you are not doing anything wrong, what difference does it make?”
A system of cameras on city streets and other public spaces increases the chances of catching a criminal on video but can also create an overwhelming amount of evidence to filter through. These cameras make some people feel more secure, knowing that bad guys are being watched. But privacy advocates and other citizens are uneasy with the idea that the government is monitoring their every public move. Meanwhile, software called facial-recognition is available to law enforcement to make security camera images more accurate and easier to examine. Now, software can automatically scan through these videotapes and find information, such as a specific persons face and narrow down suspects to better find the criminal. In a monitored and control environment every move will be recorded whether what people are doing is good, bad, or indifferent. Under the pretext of safety it all sounds great, however these security tapes could be used for more than just a crime deterrent. "If there is nothing to hide then there is noting to fear" Sometimes you need to break privacy to gain it.
Security cameras often catch more than what they were even meant to. ATM machines have been used to catch a crime that took place in the background. Those who give up privacy for security deserve neither. Cameras will obviously not deter suicide bombers who are not worried about being identified in the course of the investigation that follows, and may, since the purpose of a terrorist attack is to terrorize and to gain publicity. These security cameras don’t pose a treat to these criminals because a criminal will still cover his face when robbing a bank. However it these cameras don’t always need to catch the face of the criminal. They can point out what the person was wearing, what gestures he preformed, and most important they show the time/date and the tapes can be broadcasted to alert the area and use the media to catch the criminal. In fact after the Boston marathon bombing, the media showed pictures and tapes of the bombing and then a manhunt was locked down. In an increasingly growing technological world is using video surveillance to regulate crime a good or bad idea? We have distinguished, the potential that surveillance systems have to offer, and it is only starting to be realized and there are numerous, moral and technological entrepreneurs who are seeking to develop system capacities to exploit it to its full potential. However we should not fall into the trap of technological determinism. As we have seen, surveillance systems in its operation and its effects are depending on a host of social courses, which shape how the technology is actually used.

Works Cited
Sanborn, Kristina. "Surveillance Cameras Are a Necessary Tool for Campus Safety Daily Sundial." Daily Sundial Surveillance Cameras Are a Necessary Tool for Campus Safety Comments. 7 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.

"Debunking The Dangerous “If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear”." Falkvinge on Infopolicy. 16 Apr. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.

Larraneta, Izaskun E. "New London Police Use Video Surveillance, GPS Coordinates to Capture Shooting Suspect." The Day -. Theday.com, 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.

Goold, Benjamin. "Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance And Crime Prevention - By Brandon C. Welsh And David P. Farrington." The British Journal Of Sociology 2 (2011): 379. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

DVORAK, JOHN C. "What Do You Have To Hide?" PC Magazine (2013): 139-140. Business Source Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Norris, Clive. "The Intensification And Bifurcation Of Surveillance In British Criminal Justice Policy.(Author Abstract)." European Journal On Criminal Policy And Research 1-2 (2007): 139. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

"Install Video Surveillance Cameras Cost." Cost to Install Security Cameras. 21 Mar. 2008. Web. 03 Oct. 2013.

Cited: Sanborn, Kristina. "Surveillance Cameras Are a Necessary Tool for Campus Safety Daily Sundial." Daily Sundial Surveillance Cameras Are a Necessary Tool for Campus Safety Comments. 7 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2013. "Debunking The Dangerous “If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear”." Falkvinge on Infopolicy. 16 Apr. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2013. Larraneta, Izaskun E. "New London Police Use Video Surveillance, GPS Coordinates to Capture Shooting Suspect." The Day -. Theday.com, 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2013. Goold, Benjamin. "Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance And Crime Prevention - By Brandon C. Welsh And David P. Farrington." The British Journal Of Sociology 2 (2011): 379. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. DVORAK, JOHN C. "What Do You Have To Hide?" PC Magazine (2013): 139-140. Business Source Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. Norris, Clive. "The Intensification And Bifurcation Of Surveillance In British Criminal Justice Policy.(Author Abstract)." European Journal On Criminal Policy And Research 1-2 (2007): 139. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. "Install Video Surveillance Cameras Cost." Cost to Install Security Cameras. 21 Mar. 2008. Web. 03 Oct. 2013.