Surveillance Technology: Paradox in Private Security - Research Paper Example

Surveillance Technology: Paradox in Private Security Introduction The modern day period has given a widespread opportunity for technology to flourish. In this sense, the projected output in surveillance for various purposes has also kept pace with modernization, especially on surveillance techniques. As its namesake implies, this type of program approaches information through surveillance of a variety of people in specific places. Contextually, there is “collection and processing of data...(for) managing those whose data have been garnered” (Lyon, 2001, p. 2). Hence, most companies and government security agencies exploit the widespread efficiency of the technology for substantial gains. Together with the rise of surveillance technology is the consequent rackets created by privacy advocates who question the moral and legal implications brought by the rising popularity of surveillance technology. Privacy, in this discussion, evolves on the liberty of executing activities with little restrictions...” interest against intrusion...(and) information privacy” (Kearns, 1999, p. 979). By this, privacy entails confidentiality and ability to control information activities. Although the benefits of surveillance technology may have considerable impact on peoples’ living conditions, its basic technique threatens the foundation of individual rights to privacy, possibly outweighing public welfare for private privileges. Surveillance Technique: Positive Impact The handy concept of information technology applicably fits the dynamics employed in surveillance technique, increasing improvement in general economy. According to Innes (2003, p. 123), society places the technique in surveillance at the top rank, with its coercive ability to trace the movement of consumers in the market, as well as business manipulation of workers’ behaviors. There is a predictive quality in fully operating the technology of surveillance. For one, Hess (2009, p. 166) explained that by periodically tracing the pattern of consumer behaviors, specific markets can arrive at pertinent market conclusions, either the products or services they offer yield positive feed backs or not. Likewise, those engaged in profitable businesses can take full advantage of the techniques as employers in work areas can periodically monitor labor operations during work period. In these circumstances, those in authority have measures to ensure that workers are following the set regulation of the organization, to the extent of listening to conversations shared by employees. Such action confirms the notion that when employees became aware that they are being observed, they tend to perform better in work (Hansson & Palm, 2005, p. 58). This way, social control in various departments of the organization is maintained, ensuring influx of profit with excellent employee performance. Surveillance techniques are primarily exercised to resolve crime related issues. After the massive terrorist attacks in United States, nations have become vigilant against threats to the public safety, up to the extent where almost all district establishments have surveillance technologies, making sure that unsavory characters activities and characters are detected before undue damage is ensued (Brookes, 2002, p. 1). Imperatively, the application of surveillance technology in police enforcement agencies is crucial, for it serves as effective control measure (Innes, 2003, p. 31). With the maximum potential of surveillance techniques, law enforcers have a definite method in pinpointing those likely to have committed crimes, either petty or serious ones. Recognizing its vital role in State security, some local governments mandated the placement of surveillance cameras in vulnerable locations, including transportation depot and business establishments, relying on this technology to ascertain people suspected of committing law violations (Hess, 2009, p. 166). The clear footage provided by surveillance equipments verifies the identity of criminals, promptly apprehend law violators before situations worsen. With the use of more sophisticated gadgets, the “facial-recognition” aspect of surveillance yields more accurate outcomes, at the same time, database only files information of recognized criminals (Subramanian, 2008, p. 107). Accordingly, since it does not record data of innocent individuals, there is little chance that such information will be exploited for unrelated yet damaging purposes. With its accurate monitoring quality, surveillance technique generates reassurance in the lives of community citizens, thereby increasing evaluative substance in society. In another field, collecting centralized data of citizens in government transactions conserves various expenses--specifically by rendering personalized and faster approach in reliable public transactions (“Chapter 3: Advantages,” 2009, n.pag.). Surveillance makes this possible by obtaining the necessary information related to the citizens who accept government’s assistance and support, thus, associated sharing of information by various relegated agencies is performed in secured procedures. In general, a variety of service arrangements are available, from “medical records, voting lists...and (government) employee numbers,” thus, it is little wonder the government can easily track how the public is doing (Lyon, 2003, p. 164). Common in this scenario is the fact that during initial transaction, the government acquires basic information of their citizens, while subsequent monitoring already includes lifestyle checks on the citizens they serve. The ultimate benefit is that similar to law enforcement, government institutions are now more able to detect abnormalities and flaws in the systematic provision of services. Hence, they are efficient in serving the public. Aside from that, the retrieval of pertinent client information has evolved from the traditionally slow activity of manual processing to computerized updates common in surveillance technology. In general, surveillance movements are “key means of marking and reinforcing social divisions” (Lyon, 2003, p. 166). These acts simplify activities in bureaucratic systems and private institutions, wherein the primary customers are the public citizens. Indirectly, surveillance methods maintain social order in the performance of public transactions. In this case, the advantage of surveillance technology encompasses both the public and government domain, enhancing services for speedy results. Negative Feedback on Surveillance The act of surveying other peoples’ transaction can already be assumed as invasion of their private rights. The situations discussed above demonstrated the profound impact of surveillance techniques on social behaviors and market economy of several business establishments. With relative proficiency in forecasting socioeconomic movements, such technique may serve a valuable position in society. However, easy accessibility does not automatically mean that success is already at hand. There is still interpretation and actual application of data. Such process is fraught with human risk for errors, as inconsistencies may occur if data is dubious and unverified. As surveillance technology is monitored by a centralized system in specific locations, experts can purposefully monitor significant activities; hence, judgment of human being is also a factor in the surveillance. Human factor in carrying out the surveillance act has negative implications on the right of citizens to their private affairs, even in public and work areas. Human judgment, as part of the imperfect persona inherent in human beings, is subjected to faulty characteristics and partial intentions. Privacy, at this moment, can be breached in the incidence of “data mismanagement and data theft” (Stamellos, 2007, pp. 29-30). If not supervised with prudent discretion, the collected information may convict innocent individuals, destroying their privacy privileges in the process. At this point, despite the supposed commercial gains that society may acquire with surveillance technology, its implications on the private lives of citizens poses unfavorable consequences, ones that may destroy their lives. In terms of national and local security, there is an arguable point that had been left unsaid amidst this issue; there is no clear delineation on where public rights end and private privileges begin. Clearly, law enforcers only have the interest of the public in mind during episodes of monitoring on vulnerable areas. However, there seems to be ambiguity in the notion of protecting both the welfare of the public and at the same time, preventing the trespass of privileges that private individuals must enjoy. The mere surveying and recording of citizens’ movements in open areas can provoke negative reactions since the concept of privacy “remains tied to the individual rather that certain...spaces” (Subramanian, 2008, p. 107). It clarifies the idea that common association of privacy is related to specific places only. Despite the best intentions to reduce crime, the act of covertly monitoring a person, regardless of spatial location, is already an infringement of privacy. Appallingly, the act of monitoring all the people in public areas for the intent of identifying and tracking criminal movements may sound fair, but in the process of surveillance and storage of information, there is no absolute assurance that this information cannot be used for purposes other than security guarantee. In worse-case scenarios, information through surveillance can be “matched for verifying (peoples’) identity and tracking their (individual) movements” (Subramanian, 2008, p. 109). Risk of surveillance data misuse runs high in law enforces, especially for personal gains. Private privacy, even in public places, been breached; adding injury to the situation, surveillance data can be made available for the right prices. The danger of monitoring people for public safety can, thereby, backfire. Surveillance technology can now be instrumental in invading private privacy, in disguise of protective security purposes. Furthermore, the threat in misguided management in public transaction may involve inside work force unreliability. Personnel may not be the only liable ones; there might be possible leak of information from the main institutional source towards other concerned agencies. Privacy denotes “information control” (Moore, 2010, p. 13). With this, the primary source of information has both the moral and legal obligation to keep private information confidential. As in the case in Department of Immigration, they can inquire on the status citizens due to suspicious documents, delving into private affairs in private business transactions and passing such information to other related departments for further scrutiny (Lyon, 2001, p. 8). There is discretion on the part of the main institutional source of information, but despite its security intentions, the right of citizens against intrusion of private data has been severely broken. In application public transactions have paved way for their categorical classification in relation to alliance and standpoints in politics. They are at risk for “national prejudices (and) political assumptions,” as access in government transactions gives some diplomatic officials the right to information use, but not in the negative way (Stamellos, 2007, p. 31). The moral implication of these is not covered by legal punishments, but such actions are ethically faulty, nonetheless. The line margin on where transactions should be kept private is still unclear at this point, especially on where the private and government institutions should draw the line, and at what justifications must be met in order for private information to be ethically violated. Even in the part of the government, surveillance technology can be severely exploited, at the expense of the citizens’ privacy conditions. In the argument between the constructive and destructive influence of surveillance technology, the extent of protecting the status of private individuals seems to veer on public protection, instead of private defense. In the protection of individual privacy, U.S. Constitution logically excused surveillance in public locations, as with emphasis of lack of privacy when exposed in public and knowingly baring oneself to critical inspections (Subramanian, 2008, p. 166). This entails more than spatial component of privacy; there is the issue on the attitude rendered when in public domain. For one, there is the subjective basis of exercising privacy rights. Common factor existing between public and private right is the dimension of security. Individuals strive to protect their personal activities from community scrutiny; at the same time, the people in public places aspire to accomplish public pursuits in the absence of physical or psychological intimidation. Contrary to common perception on privacy security, the citizens’ viewpoint on what should be kept private creates a sense of falsehood on the basic principle of intrusion in privacy rights. It clarifies the viewpoint that privacy can still be intact with information disclosure, provided that the information revealed is not a “secret”--even swapping this right for public security against national threat (Schermer, 2007, p. 124). In the face of more serious threats, most individuals choose physical security against keeping personal information intact. This is a proof that the traditional view on what must be remained in private is no longer applicable in modern generation. This draws the informal margin separating public and private sphere; private rights cease to exist in the instance of public menace. Conclusion All in all, surveillance technique may contain qualities that potentially violate the core principals of privacy rights, but in return, there is an assumption that it has the ability to build national security assurance. The utility of such technique has branched out from its original place in government system of basic data collection; it has been fully utilized in predicting market activity and even modifying employee behavior in large companies. In these scenarios, predictive monitoring may be a breach in personal rights, but most are employed in the limits of corporate policies. However, in the case of national security, there is a unanimous assessment that in light of the growing security threats to communities, surveillance technique is employed as a necessary preventive approach--regardless of private information that is revealed along the way. As long as the public national stability is assured, the eventual practice of private rights is also ensured, but on the conditional basis. References Brookes, P. (2002). Electronic surveillance devices. Woburn, MA: Newness. Chapter 3: Advantages and disadvantages of surveillance and use of personal data. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/1805.htm Hansson, S.O., & Palm, E. (2005). The ethics of workplace privacy. Brussels, Belgium: P.I.E.- Peter Lang. Hess, K. (2009). Introductionn to private security. Canada: Cengage Learning. Innes, M. (2003). Understanding social control: deviance, crime and social order. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Kearns, T.B. (1999). Technology and the right to privacy: the convergence of surveillance and information of privacy concerns. Willina and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 7 (3), 975-1011. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: monitoring everyday life. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance technology and surveillance society. United States of America: Massachussets Institute of Technology. Moore, A.D. (2010). Privacy rights: moral and legal foundations. United States of America: Pennsylvania State University. Schermer, B.W. (2007). Software agents, surveillance, and the right to privacy: a legislative framework for agent-enabled surveillance. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Stamellos, G. (2007). Computer ethics: a global perspective. Athens, Greece: Jones and Barlett Learning. Subramanian, R. (2008). Computer security, privacy, and politics: current issues, challenges, and solutions. United Kingdom: IGI Global. Read More