Law Enforcement Cameras Are an Invasion of Privacy - Research Paper Example

Law Enforcement Cameras Are an Invasion of Privacy: An Annotated Bibliography “How Many Eyes Are Watching? Video Surveillance and Privacy.” Legal and Criminal Justice 29: (2014). Web. 10 Nov. 2014. This source supports the use of surveillance cameras and distances these gadgets from infringing into the privacy of people. The given background information on camera installations and their operations provides critical foundation for the research paper. It provides useful insights on the non-interference of surveillance cameras with privacy, arguing against the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in public space. Even so, the source cautions of how these cameras capture unintended images from private locations. Thus, despite its support for surveillance cameras, this source provides appropriate arguments for both sides of the divide on way privacy gets affected by surveillance cameras. Horng, Eric. “’Camera on Every Corner’: Protection or Invasion?” Abcnews.go.com. ABC News. 29 Jul. 2007. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. This article uses the story of a victim of crime to illustrate the usefulness of police surveillance cameras in protecting people in the cities in America. On the other hand, it also discusses the limitation of this technology, including its inability to selectively capture what is useful to deter crime, thus bringing it out as a technology that invades privacy. As such, the research paper could borrow critical arguments on law enforcement cameras for protection and their limitation with regards to invading privacy. Keenan, Kelvin M. Invasion of Privacy: A Reference Book. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print. This book articulates pressing issues on privacy from the 17th Century to date, giving an account of how governments have abused some of its privileges. Of particular importance to this research paper is its discussion of the sophisticated cameras used for surveillance by the police. The ability of these cameras to peer through private settings provides the basis for argument for infringement of privacy by law enforcement cameras. Lynch, Jennifer. “New York Traffic Safety, Without Invading Privacy.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. In this article, Lynch discusses the use of cameras in traffic to reduce pedestrian fatalities. With a focus on New York City, the article educates on the powerfulness of these cameras in capturing images even in places considered as private. However, the author concludes by noting no evidenced reduction in pedestrian fatalities as a result of installation of these cameras. Apart from being useful in appreciating the functionality of surveillance cameras with regards to crime prevention, this source is also useful in arguing for law enforcement cameras as privacy invaders. Moriarty, Erin. “Surveillance Cameras and the Right to Privacy.” Cbsnews.com. CBS News. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. This publication discusses the technological advancement in law enforcement, particularly focusing on surveillance cameras. The author gives details of the operation of these cameras and citing examples, shows how these cameras go against the Fourth Amendment which safeguards against unreasonable searches. It is a useful source in understanding the operation of law enforcement cameras, thus providing the basis for arguing and counter arguing on the infringement of privacy by the cameras. Slobogin, Christopher. Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2007. This book enlightens on how the government could constantly monitor the activities of its citizens without their consent through closed circuit TV among other sophisticated technologies. Other than articulating the purpose of these cameras, the author, especially in chapter four, gives statistics and facts that support the accompanying infringement of privacy, noting a violation of the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches. It is thus a useful source in setting the foundational discussion on law enforcement cameras and arguing for the associated privacy infringement. Law Enforcement Cameras Are an Invasion of Privacy Introduction Law enforcement has been on the forefront to adopt advanced technologies to attain its objectives in the wake of increase in number and complexity of crimes. As such, numerous technologies have been adopted with this regard. These include use of biometric identification equipment, DNA testing equipment and surveillance cameras among many others (Slobogin 7). This paper evaluates the use of the camera technology in law enforcement, specifically evaluating the debate on privacy concerns. For instance, following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Washington, D.C. has since mounted hundreds of cameras on streets, federal facilities, hallways and subways. Chicago has also been on the forefront to adopt this technology, having spent $8 million from municipal and federal funds to set up its surveillance cameras (Slobogin 82). The United Kingdom tops the world in using law enforcement cameras, the country said to have over 800 local public video surveillance programs of three million to four million cameras. The per capita of the country from video images tops globally (Slobogin 83). These cameras have the ability of peering across wide stretches in the city, creating digital image records. They use satellite-based optics to see in the dark, peer into buildings and capture words printed on a page from afar according to Keenan (60). In as much as these cameras foster law enforcement, these capabilities make them invade into the privacy of the people. Arguments for Law Enforcement Cameras and Privacy The law enforcement cameras are only activated where there are major events or emergencies, making them only act to specific triggers. Slobogin gives the example of such cameras as used in Washington, D.C. with recording kept only for ten days (82). Some even sense motion and start rolling only when triggered by such motion. This specificity of their action only makes them used for law enforcement and not otherwise. Hence, the privacy of citizens remains well-guarded. However, there is an increasing move towards the adoption of 24/7 surveillance by these cameras. Already, Chicago had 2,200 cameras in 2007 operating day and night, every day of the year, making it capture images that do not even pose a security threat. Such are the reasons that a former director of the Office of Emergency Management of New York, Jerry Hauer, wished for “detection and intervention” rather than “remote observation by camera” (Horng). These law enforcement cameras would rather be gadgets that could detect security threats and sound an alarm rather than gadgets that merely record all events happening. This indiscriminate capturing of images makes the cameras a threat to privacy. The sole aim of law enforcement cameras is to enforce law and order. They deter criminal attempts in areas where they are located. These cameras are used mostly in high crime areas, 25% used on the streets and 15% in parks. They have reduced crime by about 50% to 70% (Slobogin 84). In fact, “How Many Eyes” argues further that “if a police officer has the right to be where a video camera can be installed... then it’s not a violation of privacy to insert a camera in that space.” More so, these cameras, particularly the body cameras, have played a critical role in maintaining law and order, capturing images of police brutality and use of excessive force. Such functions make these cameras beneficial for law enforcement, the purpose for which they were intended to undertake. Therefore, privacy issues should not arise since, whatever else that is not the objective of the cameras, does not apply. However, since these cameras do not have the capability to select what images they capture, there have been incidences where law enforcement officers have been accused of capturing private images. Horng cites the examples of a San Francisco police officer who ogled female air travellers using airport cameras and police officers who recorded an intimate rendezvous of a couple on a terrace during the New York Republican National Convention in 2004 using a night vision camera from a helicopter. These examples show that in as much as law enforcement cameras could be aimed for maintenance of law and order, their inability to selectively select the images to capture make them prone to misuse thus infringement on the privacy of people. It has also been appreciated that crime has become more sophisticated with criminals leveraging on advanced technology to undertake their activities. Emergent technological innovations have made criminals adopt strategies that are complex for traditional law enforcement approaches to expose. With such advancements, the police force also has to adopt new technologies to fight crime. For this reason, the camera technology has been introduced in law enforcement to observe the moves of criminals and thus deter crime. Moriarty gives the example of cameras in Chicago which have the capability of watching over 232 square miles using its massive camera network. Furthermore, these cameras have been noted to be extremely powerful, zooming in up to 184 times digitally and 32 times optically. As such, law enforcement officers would be able to capture even what is in print displayed in the streets. This makes it more effective for law enforcement officers to enforce law and order. Furthermore, these law enforcement officers deal with a massive population to maliciously pick out information from a person. They only seek for indicators of crime. With every second counting, such officers do not have the time to focus elsewhere on the private lives of people at the expense of watching out for criminal intents. Nonetheless, it is the powerful capabilities of these cameras that further the privacy concerns of people since it capture even the minute details of people’s private engagements. Arguments against Law Enforcement Cameras and Privacy However, law enforcement cameras are mounted in nearly in all places. Had the cameras been set up at public places only, the tendency of infringing on the privacy of the people could be minimal because public places are not associated with privacy. However, these cameras are located even in schools, suburban neighbourhoods and business premises (Slobogin 82). Their placement in some of these private settings interferes with the privacy that such places could give, making these cameras a privacy threat. The technological advancement has seen police officers use body cameras for investigations which they use to enter homes where they encounter victims, suspects and bystanders. These people could at times be found in varied situations, sometimes stressful. Recordings by these body cameras inside homes make these gadgets a subject of privacy intrusion by law enforcement cameras. With this regard, Moriarty gives the example of a man who was captured and nationally broadcasted while changing his shirt as he was believed to be the bomber who hit Times Square. Such videos taken by cameras when someone believes to be in privacy makes these gadgets that disregard private space. With the high technology, law enforcers use sophisticated cameras that have the capability of peering into hidden places considered to be private. It has been noted that some of these cameras, such as those used in the traffic department, “can peer inside a vehicle… and even into homes and offices alongside the targeted thoroughfares” (Slobogin 83). This is compounded by the fact that these cameras could be zoomed in up to 32 times and 184 times optically and digitally respectively as reported by Moriarty. These cameras capture people daily and multiple times in a day. The cameras network together and could recognise individual faces with Keenan observing that some of these cameras use the infrared technology, thus having the ability to even capture images in the dark (60). With such capabilities, these cameras leave people exposed to law enforcement agencies all the time even without their consent. Finally, law enforcement cameras capture details of people which could be accessed by law enforcement officers, thus impinging on privacy rights of the people. According to Lynch, such cameras as those used in traffic could retain data of a given licence, including time, date of photographing and location, for as long as up to five years. Compilation of data on a given plate could enable law enforcement officers to know the places a person has visited and the times and could as such target specific organisations, political activists or neighbourhoods on hot lists, making their activities set off alerts. A similar argument has been brought forth by “How Many Eyes” who argue that the footage captured by law enforcement cameras could be misused thus leaving the private lives of people exposed. Furthermore, because there have been no evidence showing that adding cameras on the streets deter accidents, the use of cameras for traffic purposes does not serve the intended purpose. Nonetheless, evidence exists of how these cameras have infringed on the privacy of the people. As such, instead of having gadgets that cross beyond the boundaries of their jurisdiction, they should be done away with instead of working with them and interfering with people’s right to privacy. Conclusion With the world experiencing robust technological advancement, law enforcement has adopted the use of cameras among other technologies to undertake its mandate. Numerous cities across various states and even beyond have adopted the use of closed circuit TV and other video and image capturing technologies to monitor activities in the streets, buildings and other public spaces, in addition to some private places. The constant monitoring by these cameras and subsequent indiscriminate capture of images has raised privacy concerns. Proponents of the technology argue that these cameras are only activated when needed, but the increased adoption of 24/7 surveillance cameras indiscriminately and continuously capture images of events jeopardising privacy. Whereas the sole aim of these cameras is to enforce law and order, they are prone to misuse by unethical administering officers. Even with the appreciation for the need to adopt such advanced technologies to deter crime, it is such high capabilities that further privacy concerns as the cameras capture even the minute private details. Furthermore, they are mounted in nearly all places and have high-tech capabilities to even peer into places considered as private. The details captured by these cameras could be compiled over time thus giving detailed information of people, jeopardizing their privacy. As such, these cameras invade the privacy of people to a large extent, their role to detect and prevent crime notwithstanding. Works Cited “How Many Eyes Are Watching? Video Surveillance and Privacy.” Legal and Criminal Justice 29: (2014). Web. 10 Nov. 2014. http://source.southuniversity.edu/how-many-eyes-are-watching-video-surveillance-and-privacy-20205.aspx Horng, Eric. “’Camera on Every Corner’: Protection or Invasion?” Abcnews.go.com. ABC News. 29 Jul. 2007. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. Keenan, Kelvin M. Invasion of Privacy: A Reference Book. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print. Lynch, Jennifer. “New York Traffic Safety, Without Invading Privacy.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. Moriarty, Erin. “Surveillance Cameras and the Right to Privacy.” Cbsnews.com. CBS News. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. Slobogin, Christopher. Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2007. Read More