The Ethics of Surveillance Cameras - Essay Example

To begin with, surveillance cameras are commonly referred to as closed circuit television(CCTV).They are a modern form of surveillance, which is not a thing of the twenty first century, but which has been in existence since way back. The first United States city to employ the used of closed-circuit television was Washington D.C. Surveillance chiefly involves paying close and frequent attention to someone or something (Tavani, 2001).This is usually for a particular reason, whether private or public and for a certain period of time. In addition surveillance usually takes many forms, such as listening and smelling devices and wire tapping, but in this case, we shall focus on surveillance involving cameras, placed in either public or private areas. From when you walk out of your house, in most cities, you are being watched (Parenti, 2003). This is because the cameras are now installed in major city streets, gas stations, retail shops and transport systems such as trains. The use of surveillance cameras doubled in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City. These prompted frantic efforts, to curb terrorism, a major threat to security in this century. We are seeking to look at the ethics of surveillance cameras. Historically, the idea of watching the public by a select few, especially those who control us politically and economically can be traced to the Panoptical (Foucault, 1977). This was a kind of prison design, built in such a way that a single guard could watch the prisoners in a single gaze. This in a big way induces prisoners in a state of conscious and permanent knowledge that they are being watched. Foucault saw surveillance as a productive machinery of continuous mind control, which is somehow what current surveillance cameras represent. Therefore, what we seek to argue here is that we need new ethics in the surveillance camera industry, because of the reasons below. This is because surveillance when done correctly and for the right reasons and people, then we can surrender apart of our civil liberty to privacy, for the sake of public security. Closed -circuit televisions when placed in public areas, give people a sense of security, reduce crime by up to five percent. Up to ninety percent of respondents saw no problem in having such surveillance in public areas. Surveillance done in the above manner, by the correct agencies, can be said to be ethical and legal. On the other hand, we can seek to look at the ethics of surveillance cameras, by looking at who does it and for what they will be used to do, therefore the ethics of surveillance cameras. Ethics is defined by the BBC online, as a system of moral principles. This is what is good for the individual and society, therefore is responsible for holding the society together. The ethics of surveillance cameras, therefore seeks to look at the circumstances surrounding the use of such cameras, and just how much harm can be done if it finds itself in the wrong hands. Foucault, 1994, referred to surveillance carried out by the government as being watched by “big brother”, which would encourage good behavior amongst the general population, due to the fact that people would think that they are being watched, even when they are not. As earlier stated, this discussion is not that surveillance cameras should go, rather that it should be done in public areas, by the right people. The main areas in a person’s life most affected by surveillance cameras are trust, privacy and autonomy (Parenti, 2003). First , surveillance cameras usually infringe on a person’s privacy, mostly when it is done in their private time and within their private property. Concerns on privacy have been here since way back, and have increased with continuous improvement in technology. Most people will agree that in the face of surveillance through cameras, the right to be ourselves is greatly invaded, because it makes us uncomfortable, therefore we no longer are ourselves. This is because we feel vulnerable and try to hold back, so that people do not notice our vulnerabilities. We are all part of the large society, but knowing that some part of us, no matter how small is only private, keeps us sane, because we know that we are not completely exposed. We have been fighting over our right for privacy, and the future has never looked dim in terms of privacy invasion, as it does now, due to invasion using surveillance cameras. The question most people seek to ask themselves is who is watching those watching over us? The government and most large businesses have numerous amount of information of us, yet we know nothing about them, and this is a course for us to worry. The argument here is where the government draws the line between privacy and security concerns. To emphasize on that point, closed circuit televisions are a threat to privacy, because they are increasingly finding their way into the hands of private citizens. This is not helped by the fact that they are becoming smaller and cheaper. One can be bugged in the privacy of their home without their knowledge, and this kind of data can be easily posted on the World Wide Web. This is the opposite of security, the reason why surveillance cameras exist in the first place. Companies exist today that sell cameras in common personal and household items such as ties, vases, televisions and toys. This in essence means that one’s stalker could be watching you without your knowledge, or even somebody you do trust such as your spouse. In the case of “big brother “, just as is the case in most cities, who does the monitoring of the footage recorded. There is a possibility of approaching it with some biasness, which is completely human. For example, it has been established that we do not trust people from certain ethnicities or cultural backgrounds, such as black people, and are therefore more focused on, when looking at video footages. Moreover, the same police officers can use public video footages for selfish reasons, sometimes personal, for example spying on their friends or their spouses(Lyon, 1994). Such camera footage for security can find itself on sites such as you -tube or “funny clips.” This definitely lays bare our lives for the whole world; leave alone our surrounding community to view. Using surveillance cameras to reduce crime? Think again. According to research carried out in the city of Los Angeles and London, they only reduce it by a small margin of three percent. To be on the side of law enforcement officials, surveillance cameras are negatively impacting on their jobs, because if a camera is installed only few officers are needed to check the footage and less required to patrol the streets. This is besides the costs required to acquire, install and maintain such closed circuit televisions. Next let us look at trust. This is a feeling that exists between people; especially those who are in are in a relationship. The closer people are, the more trust exists between them. Television programs such as “cheaters” use the suspicions of one partner who does not trust the other partner, to spy on the other for infidelity. This of course is done without the knowledge of that partner. Apart from the betrayal and shame, the trust that existed between such people will never be the same(Winner, 1977). Of recent concern, is the installation of surveillance cameras in school hallways, to monitor student behavior? To give it credit it will reduce the number of petty crimes and theft, when it is only used by the school administration. On the other hand, this poses a big threat to the life of a normal kid, when this information is given to the police. School is a place where young minds are shaped and the process of growing and learning takes place. It is normal for some kids to take part in a fight, usually small and punishable through detention. However, when police are involved such insignificant cases, which are part of growing up will see more cases of school dropouts, and an increase in the number of young people in jails. For illustration purposes, consider these two examples; first a teenage waitress living in Santa Monica, California, has a camera installed in her bathroom by the landlord, without her knowledge. She notices that the landlord disappears every time she goes to the bathroom. Noticing this pattern of behavior she checks her bathroom for any bugs, and finds a camera on her bathroom mirror. She walks into her landlord’s house without his permission and finds footages o herself taking a shower. On the other hand, high definition cameras are installed in the rural house of two suspected marijuana growers. This evidence is used in court, despite protests from their lawyers, that it is an infringement into the privacy. The judge sentences them to twenty years in prison using this surveillance. Surveillance cameras are here to stay, that is no doubt, the problem is who does the surveying and in what hands the data and camera footage falls in .Current generation cameras are assisting police to put offenders in custody. In fact nowadays, most police cases depend on surveillance to put criminals behind bars. The above cases give us an example of good and bad use of surveillance cameras. Psychologists argue that there are two justifications for surveillance; consequentalist and deontological. On one hand it is consequentalist if it non-discriminatory, for example cameras installed in public places such as supermarkets, streets or gas stations. This way no one is being targeted, only to prevent wrongdoing. On the other hand a particular person can be targeted, for example a person’s mobile device can be tapped by a jealous spouse. This is direct invasion of someone’s privacy, which should not happen to anyone. Carrying out surveillance should be left to state agencies only, and not private citizens or journalists. Only then can the majority agree that we need to sacrifice a few liberties for the sake of national security, for our own good. As for those who use the argument “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, everybody has something that they do not want other people to know. Certain aspects of our lives need to remain just that; private. The only cases where ones privacy can be invaded with surveillance are; when there is sufficient evidence to do so and when the alternatives are worse that the proposed course of action (Lango, 2006). In conclusion, research conducted by the University Of South Florida College Of Public Health, concluded that surveillance cameras “violate basic forms of researching and are usually for vested interests.” To make surveillance cameras serve all people, data in the surveillance cameras should be made available to the general public. To minimize the risks that security cameras pose to us, they should be operated an integrated system rather than a single unit. Private Citizens, who spy for selfish reasons, should face more strict legal constraints to stop such future behavior. We are being watched and probably in future “big brother “ will watch us more, but this does not mean that we have to give up our all for the world to see. If we do that, what shall we remain with? It is like stripping us off our clothes, and as we all know, we are all vulnerable the most in this state. At the end of the day we want things that remain private and known only to us,and not even to the people closest to us. REFERENCES 1. Foucault, M. (1977).Discipline and Punish: The Birth of The Prison. New York: Pantheon. 2. Jasper, M.(2006).Getting your way: Strategic Dilemmas in the real world. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 3. Lyon, (D). (1994). The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Cambridge: Polity press. 4. Parenti, C. (2003). Soft Cage: Surveillance in America from Slavery to the war on Terror. New York: Basic Books. 5. Winner, L. (1977. Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of –control as a Theme for Political Thought. Boston: The MIT Press. Read More