Claims That the Perceived Benefits of Cctv Outweigh the Threat to Individuals Right to Privacy - Case Study Example

CRITICALLY EVALUATE CLAIMS THAT THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF CCTV OUTWEIGH THE THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY. + Professor Date Submitted Critically Evaluate Claims That the Perceived Benefits of CCTV Outweigh the Threat to Individual’s Right to Privacy. The Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) uses videos cameras in the transmission of signals to specific areas. The signals are not openly transmitted but are employed from one point to another; from the point of placement to the monitor (Sam 2006, 32). They are mostly used in places where high alert security is needed such as banks, military centers, airports some stores among other places where surveillance is needed. The CCTV cameras may also be used to replace human labor or human life in places such as manufacturing plants where human survival is threatened, therefore used to monitor the processes of production. They have also been used to control the traffic systems in urban centers where traffic jam becomes a menace. They are also used in public centers to control movement of individuals (Sam 2006, 68). The use of CCTV cameras in both public and private places has elicited many debates from many groups of people, among them human rights group who to some extent argue that it interferes to the universal human right to privacy, other groups argue that controlled use of CCTV cameras does not interfere with privacy rights rather it protects life (Sam 2006, 39). In this article we shall be seeking to establish if the perceived benefits of use of CCTV cameras outweigh individual liberties. CCTV cameras were first used to prevent crime in private sectors in 1960s following the advent of videocassette recorder and video tapes. In the 1960s, the use of video technology emerged. It was used sparingly in the supermarkets and other centers. In supermarkets, they were used to get shoplifters. Responsible crime control began in the 1980s when the political climate started to look for better crime control ways. Use of CCTV can be traced back to London in 1975, which were used as part of the effort to reduce crime (Robert & Susan 2010, 10). Robberies and assaults had surged in an alarming rate among the staff in London. The use of CCTV took an important role in British government crime policy in 1994 and a considerable amount of money was given to local authorities. In the United States the numbers of CCTV cameras are installed at a very unprecedented rate and widespread is felt in both urban and rural states. This is to aid the police in curbing crime in the area (Sam 2006, 38) United Kingdom has had a massive growth in the use of CCTV cameras. Local areas are able to bid for CCTV capital grants with funding from the central government. Crime prevention was mainly built through multi agency approach, the drive towards new modes of governance in local crime control through the encouragement of local coalitions between police, private security, retailers, property developers, local government and insurance companies (Great Britain 2010, 28). In a light term increase in use of CCTV surveillance has been associated with rise from modernity to post modernity. Example in prison premises it has been said to be able to control prisoners as they think they are being controlled from a central tower. It’s also viewed as delegation of discipline in public areas as people will tend to be responsible with the thought that they are being watched (Great Britain 2010, 39). It will also be used to monitor time periods and geographical space in areas they are placed. CCTV in a great way will be used in prevention of future crimes leading to a worry free nation The privacy rights in a public setting is “to be able to go about without being identified and without having ones activities subjected to special or prolonged scrutiny” (Jose, 2000, pp. 61-62). Some challenge that in regard to these surveillance cameras contravene to these. In the USA constitution Fourth Amendment, it guarantees privacy in the form of being liberated from government intrusions. America civil liberties union says that the use of CCTV surveillance in monitoring movement of people in public areas without a valid warrant of search is tantamount to invasion on the invasion of public privacy right. Continued public surveillance is seen as intimidating and creating fear among the public as one is unable to continue with normal activities such as free speech and normal behavior. This will inhibit some constitutionally-protected activities like participating in rallies, demonstrations or strikes as one fear they will be scrutinized or associated with criminal activities that could occur though they may not be part of it (Robert & Susan 2010, 39). CCTV cameras may create a notion of gated community where people may tend to associated them as a perimeter wall constructed to limit their right to free movement or association, this creates a form of dissatisfaction in people and may lead to people not able to exercise their rights properly. CCTV cameras are also associated with creating social divisions among people, for instant when a street boy walks down to a mall where there is surveillance and a mall associated with middle or high class societies, the person may be more monitored as is doomed to cause more harm than good (Jose, 2000, pp. 61-62). It does not always mean the person intended harm but will be treated with much caution than others. Another argument is that criminals know that CCTV cameras are in work so they will devise a way into avoiding them when carrying out their criminal activity. Therefore, they will be conscious of their image and identity (Robert & Susan 2010, 30). In some instances a criminal may make a model mask of some individual and the CCTV camera will not be able to differentiate a model mask and the real identity of the criminal this posses an illegal arrest of the masked individual. The criminal will go free while the innocent will be accused of a crime he did not commit. In right to these claims by individuals with the view that CCTV cameras infringe on human rights we ask the question do they really infringe, is it a matter of excuse or what is the weighted point in light of right to public privacy. The desire to control is in us and the government and other private companies seek to be in control and protect of what they have, when this is threatened they install measures that help them keep in check what is theirs and protect it from falling in the wrong hands. The CCTV cameras were installed to curb crimes in many security threatened areas. The liberal state is always in collision with the state over the limits in which surveillance should be exercised. The CCTV record videos in general and do not discriminate who it will record, this says that it abuses the rights of those who are not on the web, but the bigger picture comes into display where those we thought as the ‘angel’ turns out to be the ‘devils’ in disguise (Jose, 2000, pp. 61-62). There is no individual who walks around with a label of being a criminal, we live with them, work with them, dine with them but a ‘superpower’ somewhere (CCTV) which doesn’t discriminate is in store to ensure that we weed out this criminals. It is also argued that surveillance in public areas may create a chilling effect among the individuals; this may prevent them from holding public rallies, holding demonstrations or participating in strikes. The argument against these is that you do not have to fear if you are not doing something wrong (Jose, 2000, pp. 61-62). The use of surveillance cameras has been there for more than a decade ago and they have helped in differentiating a criminal from an innocent as they contain first hand evidence of what happened. People are more secure in places installed with surveillance cameras because they are assured of their security. Another argument is that the monitor is not always monitored. This creates a fear among individuals that one may implicated a crime on you using the cameras, that is, one may use personal differences to implicate another on a crime, an example is where a minority or a cultural misfit may be spotted in a region he is supposedly not be found. The person in charge of monitoring the surveillance cameras may create a default on them on purpose to accuse the individual on crime (Welsh & Farrington 2009, 39). This argument is not necessarily valid because a number of time surveillance cameras are used with other devices to ascertain them. In addition, sufficient evidence is needed to acquit in court. The videos are only used to aid in tribunal of an offence but not to acquit a person and if one were not doing any offense; there is no need to worry. CCTV cameras are also used where the investigative panel cannot reach yet it is important for them to do so. A perfect example is some bars and casinos where an officer is either required to do an undercover investigation therefore risking the life (Welsh & Farrington 2009, 29). The CCTV goes in handy as it replaces the officer and the risk it may go with it. This helps to curb crime in hidden areas and it weighs more in protecting the life and curbing criminal activities rather than infringing on privacy of individuals. Human rights groups also claim that it creates a gated community where individuals feel that their rights to movement are association is limited. This is not the usual case because one has a right to do whatever they want if it does not go against the laws of the land (Welsh & Farrington 2009, 29). The gated community could also be used positively to mean a crime free area where one can live in peace of walking and conducting businesses freely. CCTV has been widely used to protect human life. Terrorism has been a major threat to developed and developing countries. Many countries have invested heavily to fighting terrorism. The surveillance cameras have worked hand in hand with terrorism departments of many countries. They have been able to locate the movements of bombs and terrorists and therefore act faster to prevent loss of life. In regions where terror campaign is unbridled or there is terrorism threat, CCTV surveillance cameras have been effectual. This has gone a long way in gaining support from both the public and political circles. An example is the terrorist attack on the Irish Republican army in 1993 (Fishman & McKenna 1995, 93). This was the catalyst of the wide expansion of use of CCTV cameras in the region. In the United Kingdom, they are used to counter terrorism throughout the country. In conclusion, it is good to note that it can protect and the same time intruding the privacy of those protecting. Use of surveillance CCTV cameras has done more good than harm when it comes to public privacy. Public surveillance measures have been used to prevent crimes in public places without infringing on rights of individuals (Goold 2004, 64). They are used to protect the very lives of those who cry for their privacy. In detail, they replace the security officers who may be biased or may not be very effective in curbing the crime that might happen. When used in line with correct laws of individual privacy they do not infringe on privacy of individuals (Welsh & Farrington 2009, 29). The benefits of CCTV cameras are many ranging from crime prevention, smooth flow surveillance in traffic, public space management, and factory and companies management. This overrates the notion that it infringes privacy of individuals. A balance should be created when using the CCTV as protection of human life is a great mandate given to many governments of different countries by its people but by doing these the privacy of individuals is not completely assured (Claes 2006, 21). Therefore, the benefit of CCTV outweighs the threat to individual’s right to privacy. Bibliography WELSH, B., & FARRINGTON, D. P. (2009). Making public places safer surveillance and crime prevention. Oxford, Oxford University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10335203. CLAES, E. (2006). Privacy and the criminal law. Antwerpen [u.a.], Intersentia. GOOLD, B. J. (2004). CCTV and policing: public area surveillance and police practices in Britain. Oxford [u.a.], Oxford Univ. Press. Great Britain. (2010). Press standards, privacy and libel: second report of session 2009- 10. Vol. II, Vol. II. London, Stationery Office. FISHMAN, C. S., & MCKENNA, A. T. (1995). Wiretapping and eavesdropping. Deerfield, IL, Clark Boardman Callaghan. DEFLEM, M. (2008). Surveillance and governance: crime control and beyond. Bingley, UK, Emerald/JAI. JOSE, R. A. (2004). The Impact of CCTV on fundamental Rights and Crime prevention Strategies: The Case of Catalan Control Commission of Video Surveillance Devices. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press. ROBERT, R. T., SUSAN R, B., & MATEHW N, W. (2010). The State Use of Closed Circuit TV:Is There a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Public? London, Stationery Office. SAM, P. (2006). University of Portsmouth: Does The Effectiveness Of CCTV As A Crime Prevention Strategy Outweigh The Threat To Civil Liberties? Antwerpen [u.a.], Intersentia. Read More