Does CCTV Represent an Attack on the Right to Privacy - Essay Example

How far do you agree with the claim that CCTV represents an attack on the right to privacy? English How far do you agree with the claim that CCTV represents an attack on the right to privacy? The use of close circuit television cameras in the streets, public areas, shops and stations has increased immensely over the past few years. CCTV utilizes video cameras in transmission of signal from one place to another. The difference of this type of video transmission and television is that it is not publicly broadcasted and is usually for security and surveillance purposes (Grass, 2002). However it uses the same transmission method from point to multiple points and from point to point. Other organizations that have adopted the use of CCTV include casinos, storage rooms, banks, airports, casinos, military installations and convenience stores. The use of CCTV however has raised several sociological on both the use of technology and to what extent this will have on the community (Goold, 2002, 21-72). Most people are unaware of the advancements in technology and the manner in which it functions; hence, they tend to suspect its misuse in several situations. The second reason why the usage of this technology has raised so many questions is the fact that it is usually hidden and people are being filmed without their consent. Another area in which CCTV surveillance is questioned is the ethical dilemma that arises from the places in which this technology should be used without over stepping moral and social boundaries. Those who oppose this method of surveillance have stated that it strongly opposes civil Liberties and have often compared it to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. However, despite all these criticisms, CCTV does not invade people’s privacy and this paper will illustrate and provide reasons for this opinion. As mentioned before, close circuit television is used mainly for security purposes. It is strategically placed in areas where it can protect and monitor the interest of a certain individual or the general public. It is never placed in an area where it invades anyone’s privacy. The essence of this first argument s the fact that CCTV is never placed with the direct intention of filming an individual’s private property without his or her consent. The places under surveillance are public and the benefits that can be derived from these cameras vastly outweigh the criticism that this technology invades an individual’s private space in a public area (Goold, 2002, 21-72). This is similar to suggesting that people who walk on the street and look at other people are invading their private space. The argument lacks substance and any beneficial attribute. In a public area one can not expect total privacy as the area is open to every individual and different people do different things despite who is on the street beside them. However, some people who oppose the use of CCTV have stated that there are some situations which result in the invasion of an individual’s privacy even in public areas. However, the occurrence of such situations is very rare and is not enough to risk losing the benefits of surveillance cameras. The argument that people have against CCTV in public areas is the fact that video information can be stored and they are not aware of what their information or footage will be used for. There is a possibility that the camera could show the pathway which an individual takes to his or her home. Though this does not directly video someone’s private property it can show where the individual lives or spends his or her time. However, close circuit television does not broadcast its footage to the public. This situation can easily be resolved by increasing restrictions on the areas where CCTV can be used. That way people can ensure that their safety is not negatively compromised and they receive the benefits of surveillance cameras. CCTV can also be justified as appropriate in terms of respecting people’s privacy due to the fact that surveillance cameras see the same information as police officers do; hence there is no major difference between the two. In addition, the cameras do not perform any activities that affect people as the footage is not published publicly and is only used as “eyes” to monitor the well being of people. In the case of CCTV in the work place, no privacy is being invaded as the cameras are there to ensure that the employees are working and performing the tasks that they are initially obliged to carry out (Grass, 2002). There is no privacy in the fact that an employee has to work for a certain number of hours and having a camera in the office is justifiable. In addition, employees are notified of the presence of cameras in the office which shows that they are not being secretly filmed and adds a touch of transparency in the matter. However, if cameras are placed in areas such as the bathroom, invasion of privacy may be questioned (Von Hirsch, 2007). CCTV also adheres to certain principles which ensure that it does not intrude into people’s privacy and serves its purpose within its jurisdiction. Surveillance cameras should not intrude into private property and should remain in either public places or in private property at the owner’s consent. CCTV is also located in places such as bank terminals. It adheres to strict policies and does not publish or store personal information such as pin codes or credit card balance. Furthermore, the majority of companies which use CCTV, inform the interested parties how their information will be stored and who will have access to this data. Personal information that is not stored by these cameras also includes name, address and email. As mentioned above the positioning of circuit television cameras is strategically planned out to not invade other people’s privacy by filming their private property. It would be justifiable to oppose CCTV if it was positioned in a particular position in order to monitor people’s private activity. This process would be spying and incoherent with CCTV morals and principles. CCTV merely monitors common grounds or areas that belong to the owner of the cameras. For example, an individual can place his or her cameras on his property or land, however, these cameras might extend to the area owned by his neighbor, this does not qualify as a breach of privacy the individual’s full intent is to protect his property and has no interest in what occurs in his neighbor’s area (Senior, 2003). One requirement which also ensures the fact that CCTV is not an invasion of privacy is the fact that in areas where the surveillance cameras are positioned, there is always a sign which notifies the public that there are surveillance cameras, hence, people are not being privately monitored without their knowledge (Goold, 2002, 21-72). The information gathered by these cameras is also stored in a secure location where it is not used for any other purposes either than its main objective of security of ensuring that the people carry out their intended purposes at work. On the sign that there is surveillance in a particular, it is often clearly stated what the information obtained from the cameras will be used for and what purpose they are serving. If an individual is not satisfied with short explanation written beside these cameras, he may ask the owner of the cameras who will inform his or her in detail. This shows that there is no breach in privacy as the filming is not done in secret. Furthermore, if the cameras are directly overstepping the boundaries of their owner, the concerned party may ask for these cameras to be relocated (Goold, 2002, 21-72). In areas such as security centers and offices, the information obtained from the cameras is tightly controlled and secured so that no other party has access to it. This shows that there is no intent of exposing an individual to another party and the only purpose of the camera is to monitor the interests of the company. However, one may argue that there is no guarantee of keeping the stored information classified as there is always a chance that the security system could be breached or hacked which will lead to the leakage of this information. In addition, there is no guarantee that the individuals who use these cameras will not misuse the footage as they are not being monitored. Individuals also have certain rights even in public areas and the feeling that they are being monitored with every mood is a breach of such rights (Senior, 2003). In London, there are so many cameras on the street that an individual may be recorded for approximately 300 times in a space of 24 hours. Some individuals are not content with some of the parameters that are set by the people using the CCTV, however, in spite of this they have no real choice and the cameras will always remain active with or without their approval. For example, if a company employs an individual, they have placed their trust in him or her and constantly monitoring this person with cameras undermines this trust and makes the employee feel insecure (Grass, 2002). The combination of these factors makes it clear that CCTV is not a breach of privacy and has a similar purpose to that of a regular security guard walking on the streets. It does not film private property, publish data to the public, and ensures that all data obtained is safely stored, which protects the privacy and the rights of the public (Von Hirsch, 2007). References Goold, B. J. (2002). Privacy rights and public spaces: CCTV and the problem of the “unobservable observer”. Criminal Justice Ethics, 21(1), 21-27. Gras, M. L. (2002). The legal regulation of CCTV in Europe. Surveillance & Society, 2(2/3). Senior, A., Pankanti, S., Hampapur, A., Brown, L., Tian, Y. L., & Ekin, A. (2003). Blinkering surveillance: Enabling video privacy through computer vision.IBM Technical Paper, RC22886 (W0308-109). Von Hirsch, A. (2007). The Ethics of Public Television Surveillance and CCTV.InDret, 4. Read More