Video Surveillance Cameras vs. Personal Privacy - Research Paper Example

Video Surveillance Cameras vs. Personal Privacy Video surveillance has been in existence for a long time now. Often you will find cameras in shopping malls, bank halls, work places, airports, transportation hubs and mostly in urban streets. As modernization and development increased, the number of risks also grew to such an alarming extent that employers, governments, organizations and even individuals saw the need for keeping close watch on their lives and property. Video surveillance has been more embraced in the recent times compared to other complex systems. Camera surveillance has taken over the market as a main figure of supervision in high risk public and private areas, where theft and terrorism are observed to be prevalent. The digital technology has proved to be the ultimate stimulator for camera surveillance, which comes in a variety of models that could be easily implemented for use. According to Jones, there are about 100 million CCTV cameras operating in the world of which 30 million can be identified to be from the United States (2mcctv.com). Systems of video surveillance cameras have been applied widely for different situations and not necessarily to intrude in personal privacy, but to monitor and supervise activities for the intended purposes. Location and privacy: The use of surveillance cameras is potentially used and recognized in the European nations more than in United States, with Europe significantly overstating the benefits of the CCTV (“video surveillance,” epic.org). However, many states in the United States have not only increased the number of cameras for their safety and security, but have also taken people‘s privacy into consideration. Winston and Edelbach (222) state that, “in response to the terrorist attacks, of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has increased its surveillance activities,” in addition to the need of complete information awareness. Surveillance cameras are deployed for supervisory purposes whatever the location. Today, most states in the United States will have them in the streets to deter crime activities. The cameras are placed at calculated intervals so as to capture clear sequence of any event that poses a danger among the people and on the environment (Constitution Project Staff 6). It is obvious that those cameras will be deployed on both ordinary public places and even more private areas, which are prone to crime. The constitution project staff (12) mentions that video surveillance is carried out in line with the need for police investigation, in a suspected criminal act of an individual in New York, pursuant to a warrant. Most of the crimes are strategically organized not to occur in an open place, rather looking for a secluded environment to pursue their mission. Placing cameras in such locations would make it easier for security agencies to deter crime and capture the offenders. Many in the society oppose the government strategy, claiming that they are being watched or recorded enough to read an individual’s next move and the way they privately carry themselves in the public. A study on Manhattan surveillance cameras established that there were high chances of being recorded almost every step of the way, as one walked around the city and most especially, it seems to be worse when more cameras are even located in some sacred public domains (Winston and Edelbach 223). While this is true, individuals concentrate more on their private life and tend to forget that the primary concern is not surveillance intrusion in privacy, but to gather and cover timed activities for analysis and as evidence in case of an event (Constitution Project Staff 8). Again, individuals who seem to be anxious would portray a character that would raise the suspicion of security agents monitoring activities on cameras, making them question whether the individual has a hidden agenda. With border patrol surveillance, cameras are placed on roads, highways and at the border to keep watch and control exits and entrances, in different states. Inspection at the border is crucial to security and cameras, which could determine the vehicles passing by a road by taking their number plates. According to Petersen (524) “the U.S. custom and immigration services were some of the first agencies to make use of visual surveillance technologies to patrol borders and inspect cargo and luggage, to make sure they complied with import restrictions and safety guidelines.” Personal luggage has to undergo through the same process, as other loads passing through the border, without any exception, since it is a planned activity of security. Some people who move across the borders use their private space to deliver illegal materials, hoping that camera surveillance on borders would exclude such materials, in respect for private space. The fact is that cameras are not meant to harass people over their privacy, but need to be used to impose discipline on the society and the surroundings, even if it must affect their privacy. Though privacy demands respect, the cameras at such spots, while checking cargo, may be seen as violations of travelers’ rights, in the course of serving to fulfill their purpose. It makes no difference if the same man or woman enters into a shopping mall and before anything, they have to be screened including their small packages and hand bags for women. Most often, if people feel violated, then there should be no need of carrying around private luggage, if camera surveillance means violation of privacy to them. Terrorists are mere people and just by the looks, it is not possible to tell what they carry. The assumption for surveillance is to treat all the people in the same manner, from the border at checkpoint, to their luggage investigation. Again if people feel annoyed and mishandled when it is done manually, surveillance cameras would perform that with accuracy and without bias. Employers’ supervision in workplace: unlike before, companies and organizations have to depend on video surveillance to ensure activities are being conducted smoothly, checking out employee’s job attendance and tracking irresponsible employees in their activities (Morley and Parker 661). An employee no longer has to lie for his or her timing on job arrival, since the video cameras will tell the time of arrival and departure from the footage. Whatever they do in their working space and how they relate with others are the largest employer’s concerns, as well as how much time the employee concentrates in work without distractions. Many times, employees are identified to have more than professional relationships with one another through cameras monitoring. That makes it easier too for the employer to determine how much of the invested resources are being used rightfully, for companies’ business purposes (Morley and Parker 661). Tracking employees’ and guests’ moves, watching their way of conduct and at times acquiring the rights to decode employees’ calls in case of suspicions enhance security and clear the doubts, with no intention of distracting employees’ privacy. Some employees are fond of switching languages, while talking on phones in job places. This may be alarming to their employers, who hence use camera surveillance recording to determine the genuineness of the conversation. Following a report from Ontario, institutions and companies have to seek authority to gather personal information that can be recognized from an individual through a video surveillance system, without violating the law (Cavoukian 3). Cameras placed near wash rooms raise more serious controversies, despite the considerate perimeter of surveillance; employees take advantage of the situation, which may have limited surveillance, to engage in unlawful conduct such as smoking. Workers feel restricted to express and associate freely, since they know that someone is always watching them. While it is a fact there is intrusion in their privacy, the employers are exercising their right of business control, with the help of video surveillance cameras. Monitoring services necessity: Certain working environments only require monitoring concentration to carry out the required duties; such is the case with patients in hospitals who have been isolated due to spread of illness. In such quarantined positions, the medical officers concerned have to keep close watch of the patient to observe any changes in development, so that the right treatment can be offered to counter the illness. Deployment of video surveillance cameras in medical functions like surgeries management and telemedicine among others assists to offer more effort on patients care. “The cameras in these patient rooms do not record to ensure privacy and the video data travel over separate network to maintain complete patient confidentiality” (Colling and York 469). Cameras around the hospitals assist to monitor the behavior of the patients, apart from other security measures. It is more concerned with matters of health and facilitates quick action for any developments, once an incident is reported. It also helps to coordinate activities, ensure surveillance on more patients in the hospital, and if it were done manually by human beings, it would take a lot longer. Some incidences put forward claim that security cameras surveillance in patients rooms and hospitals are used wrongly. While this may considerably be argued, some patients have no idea that they are being monitored. In cytology and X-ray rooms, patients have to undress, for the doctors or medical physicians to conduct their check up. The concern of the patients is what those controlling and monitoring activities in the hospitals are viewing. In such situation, patient’s nakedness, individuals color and sex information becomes revealed. However, surveillance intention serves in line with duty and if for any reason medical officers are left to conduct their services without supervision, cases will always arise from patients claiming to be harassed. Technology changes in video surveillance cameras: Technology has enhanced video equipment’s power and flexibility so that they can be installed easily and relay information much clearer than in the olden times. With the evidence gathered from such improved devices, it serves as complete proof, compared to human witnessing that may be twisted around to hide the truth. According to Pompano, technology advancement in video equipments has enabled them with intelligence, so that units can be activated through motion detection and be able to gather information based on objects color (Yale.edu). Security agencies have to use proper intelligence for the video surveillance to be fully functional for supervisory purposes. As time changes, technology changes and the crimes are committed more professionally with the same use of the technology. Terrorists and robbers compete with governments on how best to acquire information to carry out their illicit acts. The United States government has to invest in powerful video surveillance cameras, to collect and analyze the right information. Technology has brought newer models of cameras , which make them easy to conceal, as they are now being developed for suitability in situations, to carry them around without being noticed on our bodies and working environments and tilting and zooming in and out to capture small and large details (Pompano Yale.edu). The United States government like any other authority determined to counter security threat has to use any available means in this modern society, which is brilliant enough to cover their paths after crime. Cameras are equipped with competitive technology, which brings in high resolution capability, biometric identification and infrared vision, besides the additional power in magnification; such systems were deployed in Chicago and Washington D.C among other metropolises, cities and towns (Constitution project staff 6). As more tools are developed to confront the threats to security, growth in technology has to intertwine with the social changes, since it will be covered through the networks of linked cameras. Individuals have to know how well to conduct themselves and handle their private matters away from the public domain and stop arguing that surveillance is against their privacy. On the contrary, widespread use of closed circuit televisions (CCTV) in companies, organizations and in individuals’ territories as way of law enforcement is criticized and is claimed to abolish freedom of expression in the society. Following an increase in the number of surveillance cameras in Washington DC, “cameras are hidden from view or disguised so as to be undetected by those passing by the camera's gaze. Some cameras can swivel to locate you, zoom in and intrude unsuspectingly in your personal space” (“Video surveillance,” epic.org). The enabled features in video reception equipments improve image captures, which make the citizens raise a concern over the limit of surveillance the cameras should cover. Much more needs to be done to safeguard the citizens’ privacy rights and values, without limiting technology capabilities on surveillance. Law makers need to harmonize technological surveillance capabilities with the constitutional rights and values, if the citizens’ personal privacy has to be secured (Constitution project staff 44). Who watches the watcher: In the United States, access of public video surveillance evidence and report in monitoring and analysis is limited only to authorized individuals, while private organizations may operate separately. The operators and controllers of video surveillance cameras are governed by rules and principles, on how conduct surveillance on the environment, without placing biases on people’s personal information. Companies and individuals have to be authorized to use video surveillance technologies, otherwise it is considered unlawful. In New York, it was recommended that the CCTV operators receive training on technical application, for them to appreciate the capability, power and limitations of use; for the employees and supervisors, training would ensure a clear awareness of unlawful behavior, based on the education on ethical issues involved in surveillance actions (NYCLU 14-15). Privacy on personal information is hence secured from manipulation and exploitation by the video surveillance operators. However, abuses of personal privacy of citizens are more likely to occur, given the fact that technology is advancing the features for surveillance. Operators have been caught on the wrong hand for capturing images in rather private areas of individuals. According to the NYCLU (9), from an event where private moments were captured from aircraft surveillance, a police officer had redirected the camera’s focus to a couple’s private activities for almost 4 minutes on record, rather than concentrating on street protestors. With all this, it is clear that the operators risk intruding into personal privacy, it is not video surveillance cameras that are programmed to do so, rather the operators have to be principled and keep the business professional. Those breaking citizens’ privacy should be held accountable for their irresponsibility, away from duty policies and regulations. Saved videos are meant to be used for criminal investigations, however, there are those that also use them for leisurely purposes (Jones 2mcctv.com) To prevent such cases, some companies and organizations have come up with better ways to handle tapes and records of video surveillance, such as destroying them after a specified period, limiting accessibility of such items off and on duty and by unauthorized individuals. Privacy protected video surveillance systems: The concern for privacy has caused a need for more specialized systems for surveillance in the public areas. Although the current technology had tried to modify features coverage to obfuscate image coverage for reasons to do with privacy, the public concern still puts pressure on the United States government just as in other countries. In the near future, video surveillance systems would come with technologies considering personal privacy in full. According to Senior (147), proposition on privacy protected video surveillance system commonly referred to as PriSurv was proposed for smaller societies. This is a step to perfect video surveillance cameras functions and exclude public blame from its invasion of privacy. The benefit of video surveillance cameras outweighs personal privacy reasons. Anyway, for those claiming their private space is invaded in the public, it is unexpected that one could use public space for private matters. People do not have to be insecure in front of cameras, not unless they are on a wrong agenda. Whether they capture your face or not, as long as you did not commit a crime, for whatsoever reasons, video surveillance is not after privacy invasion. People are driven by fear, but technology is being used to cover all chances that could lead to personal information leakage. Works cited Cavoukian, Ann. “Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places.” ipc.on.ca. September 2007. Web. 26 November 2012. Colling, Russell L. and York Tony W. Hospital and Healthcare Security. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2010. Print. Constitution Project Staff. “Guidelines for Public Video Surveillance” constitutionproject.org. n.d. web. 28 November, 2012. Jones, Tony. “Security Cameras: An Invasion of Privacy or Crime Deterrent.”2mcctv.com. 11 October 2012. Web. 28 November, 2012. < http://www.2mcctv.com/blog/2012_10_11-security-cameras-an-invasion-of-privacy-or-crime-deterrent/> Morley, Deborah and Charles S. Parker. Understanding Computers 2009: Today and Tomorrow. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. NYCLU. “Who’s Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the Need for Public Oversight” nyclu.org. 2006. Web. 28 November 2012. Petersen, J. K. Handbook of Surveillance Technologies. 3rd ed. NW: CRC Press, 2012. Print. Pompano, Angelo J. “Privacy in the Age of Video Surveillance This Is Not Your Father’s Candid Camera” yale.edu. 2012. Web. 28 November, 2012. Senior andrew. Protecting Privacy in Video Surveillance. New York: Springer, 2009. Print. Winston, Morton E. and Ralph D. Edelbach. Society, Ethics and Technology.4th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. “Video Surveillance,” epic.org. n.d. Web. 27 November, 2012. Read More