Surveillance Cameras And The Right To Privacy

Surveillance Cameras And The Right To PrivacyWith the rapid advancements in technology, flick management platforms consent drive a widely apply method to enhance hostage in both(prenominal) the open and individual(a) settings. These arrangings act as a compress multiplier and provide aeonian command in knowledge bases that are rugged or impractical to do so by other means. Surveillance of public areas has become an area of attention for concealment advocates. While these systems buzz off so far successfully navigated legal challenges, ab give or mis do of the systems foot jeopardize the big businessman to continue their use.In the years following 9/11, a immense investment has been make by federal official, state, and local administrations to increase security and cherish the homeland. Areas that once were non given a second thought by law enforcement agencies are now conside blushful high value targets. A linchpin to maximizing law enforcements effectivene ss to cope with the growing prerequisite for value has been to increase their use of technology. Video inspection systems are whiz vogue they guard made investments that act as force multipliers and allow one operator to monitor multiple spots simultaneously, regardless of how irrelevant or embarrassing to access the locations are. This change magnitude ingest for inspection has coincided with advancements in technology that produce made the necessary equipment to operate a boob tube surveillance system more(prenominal) available, functional, and at a lower cost. Government entities are non the only organizations tapping into this emerging technology, many clandestine businesses are as substantially as installing surveillance cameras to protect their assets.It is difficult to argue with the benefits of employing these systems when you consider for a aftermath that it was a bank ATM camera that filmed Timothy McVeigh position a Ryder truck outside Oklahoma Citys federal office structure just before the April 1994 blast that killed 167 people. Had it non been for this overcritical evidence, the outcome of the investigation may have been genuinely different. While in that location are sure benefits to this enhanced level of safekeeping, some watchdog groups have cautioned that this security comes at a cost, but does the end result in fact exempt the means.At one time in the non so hostile past it was uncommon to see photo surveillance universe apply at all with the exception of large shopping malls, banks, and other private businesses where large amounts of money or high valued property was frame. It simply was non cost effective for smaller businesses to make the investment. However, with increased accessibility and decreased cost it is not uncommon to see these systems in bulge al to the highest degree anywhere, to include small businesses, private homes, and even religious centers. The sophism of modern surveillance pla tforms provides a higher quality, easier to use system. Video surveillance has always been a useful tool to document an event for use at a later time as evidence against the culprit of some act, but modern systems are intuitive and pass on not only record an event they can be programmed to activate original real time triggers to sound alarms, alert the owner, and/or the police.Probably more than any other benefits, employing video surveillance security systems have alter an immense security void created by lacking human assets (Crean, cc2). legal philosophy enforcement agencies have never been able to be in all seats at once so they employed staffing and patrol protocols that covered as very much terrain as possible. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, along with several other high visibleness incidents occurring here and abroad, have highlighted the fact that current public galosh initiatives were unsatisfactory. righteousness enforcement agencies had to get wind w ays to do more with their current levels of staffing. One origin was to employ an elaborate array of video surveillance systems as force multipliers. Examples of U.S. cities where this strategy has been employed are Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C.Chicagos public safety managers have access to a collection of approximately 15,000 publicly and in private owned cameras. It is estimated that from their operations center officials can monitor 232 square miles of Chicagos urban landscape. In New Yorks Times Square, an area no larger than close half a square mile, as many as 200 surveillance cameras are active at all times. Washington D.C. resistance Police may have them all beat. During a tour of their bid center with CBS News reporter Erin Moriarty, D.C. Police question Charles Ramsey was asked about what officers were observe on several of the screens in the center. Ramsey explained they were observing a group of protestors at one of the local public buildings. When asked h ow many cameras they currently had observing the activities of the group, Chief Ramsey commented that they had twelve of their own, but had access to a practically unlimited come up as a result of being able to tap into images being fed by an array of privately and publically owned surveillance systems in the immediate vicinity (2010). These devices are accessible on demand via wireless routers and Internet connections. This on demand cap superpower is not curtail to their command center. Field units, if equipped properly, also have the ability to remote access video surveillance images via a wireless connection. Technology has provided the ability to create this link to nearly any device capable of a Wi-Fi connection. Whether it be the laptop computer in an officers patrol car or the handheld PDA a precinct commander carries.The San Diego Police Department has taken this technology one step further and automated it (2010). Instead of only providing on demand access to the assor tment of public and private video surveillance systems in the city, they automatically make that real time education available to officers who are operating their laptop equipped police police cruiser in the vicinity of the system. This video information is also available on demand at the police dispatch center. The benefits to this set up with consider to enhancing officer safety are incredible. Imagine the lone police officer responding to a commercial building alarm in the middle of the night. As soon as the dispatch center receives the call they would be alerted that a video surveillance system is available. Before the responding officer puts their vehicle in drive to go to the call, the dispatch center is already mull overing the location for signs of trouble. When the officer is within a few blocks of the business he receives a notification on his computer that the building has video uplink capabilities. Prior to arriving he pulls to the curb and in just a few seconds is a ble to on a lower floorstand the real time surveillance video to familiarize himself with the buildings layout, potential hazards, signs of an positive crime in progress, or perhaps live video of the suspects fleeing the aspect in their vehicle and heading directly at him (Crean, 2002).There is also a deterrent factor at play when overt video surveillance is in place. Cameras that are highly visible to the perpetrator can instill an enhanced fear of committing the crime because of the perceived likelihood of get caught. If they do opt to commit the act, then having a properly monitored video system vastly increases the probability of being caught. Experts in this field of study have noted that even though the economy underwent a major(ip) recession in past years, the crime rates have not increased dramatically. In fact, some categories have made substantial decreases. This is notable as history separates us that when the economy is bad people become desperate and crime typica lly increases. More than one advocate of increased use of video surveillance has pointed out that as these systems became more public the crime rates decreased (Osborn, 2006). Whether there is an actual link amidst the two remains to be seen, but the speculative evidence is very interesting.Just as there are those who preach the benefits of employing video surveillance systems, there are for certain those who argue just as vehemently against its use. Probably the single greatest concern voiced is the intrusion of seclusion that goes along with this emblem of surveillance. Generally speaking, if the video monitoring is taking place anywhere that is open to the public then it does not constitute an invasion of privacy. As with most general rules, it is not always that simple. Watchdog organizations have argued that the use of covert cameras is an invasion of privacy since the cameras cannot be learned (The piece of music Project, 2007). In other words, if the public is not mad e aware they are being filmed than their privacy rights have been violated. Because of the proliferation of these systems, adequate notifications would be a nearly impossible goal to attain. Cities like Washington D.C. would probably need to put signs at the city limits on all major thoroughfares that security cameras are in use in the city and you are progeny to being captured by one of these systems at all times. Certainly not very practical.This begs the question, are these privacy concerns without basis? Consider for a arcminute the hypothetical situation presented by Angelo Pompano of the Yale-New Haven Teachers InstituteOn a typical day you wake up and walk out to your mailbox. A neighbors private security camera is trained on his driveway crossways the street and picks you up. Later, you drive to work and when you get to the light on the corner, a video camera is watching to see if you went finished a red signal. You stop off at an ATM and you are taped. You go into the 7 -Eleven-taped spirit gas- taped get on the interstate and the traffic control cameras are focused on you. You get to work and the camera in the put lot follows you into the building. Then you finally get you your desk and once more you are monitored (2010).As Mr. Pompano points out, on the average day by 815 AM you have already been captured on video surveillance a dozen times. This is only the video we know about. This report will not touch on the clandestine surveillance being undertaken by the government at all times. Im not saying I agree with Pompanos vox populi that this is a bad thing, but it is a reality.A second concern that is frequently raised is the potential that video surveillance arranging will be misused by the organization that captures them. Critics point out that it is difficult to control how the data from video surveillance because cameras are so easy attainable and the technology is so advanced that nearly anyone could manipulate it for unethical purposes. As with any technological advancement, there will be those that dominate ways to abuse it. Take for example a number of incidents highlighted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in their article Whats Wrong With everyday Video Surveillance? (2002). The general manager of a prominent Florida newspaper installed a hidden video camera in the employees bathroom under the guise of eliminating employee theft. The problem lies in the fact that when confronted with the cameras placement the manager could not document any thefts that had occurred. Or the management at Bostons Sheraton Hotel covertly recording its employees changing clothes in a locker room on the pretext that it was investigating suspected drug use by its workers. Or the JC Penney security guard in Concord, California, that was caught showing off recordings during which he zoomed in on female customers breasts as they walked around the store. Needless to say, there is certainly room for abuse. However, the claim by those opposed to video surveillance that there is no way to control this image of abuse is unfounded. Each of the situations describe here exposed the responsible soulfulness and/or their employing organization to both criminal and civil penalties. Laws to curb this type of infraction are already on the books and are capable of dealing with these infractions when discovered. Opponents might say that this type of illegal activity is difficult to detect so we should ban this type of surveillance. I would submit that this logic is akin to banning automobile use because driving under the influence is a difficult crime to detect and prevent. The argument simply does not make practical sense. When holes are found in the current laws that new technologies take advantage of, our legislatures have been alert to respond with new laws and practices.Legislation has been presented at both state and federal levels that would restrict the use of public video surveillance, but many of these proposed changes have been stricken down. The courts and legislatures have made it clear that this type of surveillance in areas commonly open to the public and conducted for public safety purposes are incomplete illegal nor unconstitutional (USLegal, Inc., 2010). Where these systems do find trouble with the Constitution is when they find themselves pointed into a private dwelling or other place defend by the search and seizure doctrines of the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme judgeship has decided a number of privacy rights cases, but most critical to the concept of video surveillance is seen in Katz v. United States (1967). The court rule there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. They confirmed the limits of Fourth Amendment protections against an illegal search did not apply in areas that a person lacked this expectation of privacy. In Katz the court ruled, What a person knowingly exposes to the public, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. As such, a person in a public place does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from video surveillance cameras.As for the general publics perception of the genuineness of utilizing video surveillance technology to monitor their daily lives, most have recognized it as a necessary reduction in their privacy to combat todays threat of violent crime and terrorism. Most accept the loss of some personal freedom for a feeling of security. Video surveillance by law enforcement agencies in public places is accepted by most as a minimally invasive measure implemented for the well being of the public. As highlighted in the Pompano article, Although (citizens) may not be intelligent with the use of the video surveillance equipment to catch them as they go through a red light, few people will argue with the logical thinking that video cameras promote safety (2010). Mos t law enforcement agencies will tell you there is no replacement for having cops on the beat when it comes to fighting crime, but the police cannot be everywhere at all times. With the technology advancements made in video surveillance systems and capabilities now they dont have to be.