If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about when you are in a public space; you are in the eye of the public. So what is the difference in being watch by a closed circuit TV camera? Surveillance cameras are very helpful in today's world. Apart crime reduction, there are others benefits of using CCTV cameras in public places, including ,reduced fear of crime, support to police investigations, providing medical assistance, traffic control , place management, information gathering , diffusion of benefits. Therefore, I strongly advocate the using of CCTV cameras in public places.
Surveillance cameras reduce crime rate.
We must have install surveillance cameras in public places for public safety. CCTV cameras will reduce anyone
…show more content…
There are numerous examples of CCTV footages support in an offender's conviction. Surveillance cameras was crucial to identify the suspects of Boston Marathon bombing and London tube bombing attack in 2005. Surveillance camera footage also helps to identify potential witnesses for consolidate crime scene investigation. For example, surveillance video helped to find out the two-man rustling ring. Cameras at the Okeechobee Livestock Market caught a man, with a suspiciously similar name of Yoinel DeVera, selling Hereford cattle the day after the theft. Both suspects later appeared together on a bank surveillance camera cashing a check from the sale. Police went on to apprehend the men without incident and charged them with grand theft of …show more content…
Place Management.
Surveillance cameras can use for place management. We can able to identify lost children, to monitor traffic flow, public meetings, or shows ideal requirement of police resources. Brown reports that some police commanders claim that attack on police have reduced because the cameras allow them to determine the appropriate level of response to an incident, either by sending more officers to large fights, or by limiting the number of officers to a minor incident and avoid inflaming the situation (Brown, B. (1995).
Information gathering.
Surveillance cameras plays significant role to gather information regarding intelligence and behaviour of offenders in public places (such as shoplifters in public retail areas). Camera operators often come to know the faces of local offenders, and the cameras become a way to monitor their movements in a less intrusive manner than deploying plainclothes police officers. For example, officers in one city were able to gather intelligence on the behavior of individuals selling stolen goods. This intelligence was gathering remotely by CCTV cameras and enabled police to interdict in an organized and coordinated manner (Brown, B. 1995). Although intelligence gathering is a potential benefit of CCTV, the use of intelligence gathered from CCTV to control public order through surveillance is perceived
I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s action when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in court rooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situations in question. A case of which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened.
Solutions used to deter and prevent crime in the film End of Watch (Ayer, 2012) focused on police and the duties officers perform while on patrol. In the movie, police officers played a central role in the capture of many gang and drug cartel members. This was told through the perspective of officers Brian Taylor and Mike Zavala. Therefore, the solution to crime concentrated on the police involvement, in this case Taylor and Zavala, through their presence, protection, arrests, and investigations. This solution could be generalized and would be possible through the hard work of dedicated police officers.
...Territo, L., & Taylor, R. W. (2012). Intelligence, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Police administration: structures, processes, and behavior (8th ed., pp. 90-99). Boston: Pearson.
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
Lewinski says, on the off chance that you look far from where the camera is concentrating, you may not see activity inside of the camera outline that has all the earmarks of being happening 'just before your eyes. Another is “some important danger cues can’t be recorded” Tactical cues that are important to police officers in deciding whether to apply the use of force are difficult for the body cameras to capture. In an example given by Lewinski, Case in point, an assaultive subject who conveys his hands up might look to a civilian like he 's surrendering, however to you, taking into account past experience, that can be an exceptionally scary and contentious development, flagging his planning for a battling assault. The camera just catches the activity, not your
... problems in the community. Mateescu, Rosenblat, and Boyd state this concern perfectly by bringing up, “embarrassing dashcam video footage of the arrests or traffic stops of naked women, athletes, and celebrities are sometimes disseminated online, and the same privacy concerns exist about the potential for body-camera footage to be consumed as public entertainment”. The relevant data collected from the study will be used to determine if the null hypothesis of “body-cameras have no effect on a subjects willingness to communicate with the police” is true or if the hypothesis of “the use of body-worn cameras reduce the likelihood that an individual would be willing to communicate with police”. This will be done by giving the individual questions numerical data points and calculating them in order to determine the relevant information in association with the hypothesis.
An hierarchy system of who is to be allowed accessed to camera recordings would be implemented and a specific time frame would be created for the storage of recording data. A recording may be kept for a week and after it should be removed from the data servers. However, if a recording is flagged for any reason whether it is for an investigation, it must be kept for a substantial amount of time until its usage is no longer needed. In this case, it will free up space for storage and save money from purchasing data storage. As a result, if a police officer receive a complaint or a civilian may feel the need to file a complaint, there will be a recording available to show an objective encounter of an incident between the officer and civilian; therefore, there will not be any biased statements from either party. Wakefield Police Chief, Richard E. Smith stated that “Studies have shown that when body cameras are deployed, citizen complaints against officers drop measurably”. As a result, police officers can gain a sense of security on their
Our current society is very much like Big Brother and 1984. The Federal government are not watching us through a telescreen but they are watching and going through our things. I know this because there is a Ted Talk that I watched about privacy and how the FBI goes through our emails, messages… etc, without our permission. To sum that up, in the article “Long Beach Police to Use 400 Cameras Citywide to Fight Crime,” in paragraphs 2 and 3 says that “Chief McDonnell is turning more than 400 cameras citywide as a solution to stop crime,... McDonnell has set up to tap into hundreds of privately owned cameras” to watch over the city and what goes around. Big Brother used telescreens to watch and hear everything, Chief McDonnell uses cameras to see everything that’s going on. My 4th teacher would most likely disagree with me, he is a LB police officer, so he knows having cameras to watch over the city is only making the city a better/ safer place.
As we go through our everyday lives we are always being watched whether it’s by security guards cameras or even each other. This leads us to make assumptions with the people around us. The benefit is that you use a distinguishing characteristic to narrow down suspects and find people who commit crimes. There are many benefits of law enforcement should practice it. They already do practice profiling of every sort: height, weight, color, sex, income level, there is virtually no limit. In the eyes of an average Joe that's how you catch the bad guys.
Body cameras have been the new initiative over the past few years. Barack Obama announced that in 2014 allocated millions of dollars for federal funding to allow police officers to wear body cameras and to increase their training (Harvard Law Review). There are many organizations that have voiced their opinion of the use of body cameras. Many have stated that body cameras are a good idea and they should be implemented. The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that they are believe body cameras should be used across the country, but the public should still have their privacy (Harvard Law Review).
Chertoff, M. (2014, October 23). Police cameras need to protect privacy, too. USA Today, p. 7a.
There are some major upsides in having cameras in public places. In early 2013 two people set off bombs at the Boston marathon, which killed several people and injured hundreds. The city of Boston had cameras monitoring the streets, and was able to identify the bombers within two days. (La Vigne, Nancy) The FBI was able to catch them before they were able to carry out another planned attack in Times Square, which could have been much, more devastating. In addition to being able to solve crimes that have already happened by using cameras, we are also able to use them and the other technologies that go with it to prevent crime. The National Security Agency has reported that it has prevented several terrorist attacks since 2001 using new technology put in place to prevent the attacks. However, much of the NSA’s tactics have been criticized lately, though the majority of people still agree that it is worth it. Using cameras is also a cheap way to monitor an area. Having to employ several police officers to patrol an area can be expensive and those officers could be out doing more important jobs. When you have cam...
“Each light has a different preset wavelength designed to detect hair, fibers, and body fluids at crime scenes, these lights allow a crime scene to be processed faster and more thoroughly than ever before.” This technology is speedy and can help locate the whereabouts of criminals. The use of in-car camera systems has become very popular, especially by law enforcement. These cameras are used to record traffic stops and road violations of civilians. “From the time the first in-car cameras were installed to document roadside impaired-driving sobriety tests, the cameras have captured both intended and unintended video footage that has established their value. Most video recordings have resulted in convictions; many provide an expedited means to resolve citizen complaints, exonerate officers from accusations, and serve as police training videos.” Photo enforcement systems helps to maintain road safety by “automatically generating red light violations and/or speeding summons and as a result to greatly improve safety for the motoring public.” (Schultz,
There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative. Having a network of cameras on every street in the city increases the chances of preventing a crime, along with the ability to capture a criminal on video. Some people argue that the cameras generate an overwhelming amount...
Basically security cameras are basically good and bad in all ways due to helping the public and bad for invading peoples privacy daily which would not surprise me that the government is also up to no good doing all of this but if it helps catches people who are hacking computers from other countries then oh well with that stuff. So in all ways they are good and bad for most public areas besides stores and high criminal activity area parking lots for the US otherwise crime will not stop for the people in the US and privacy will keep being invaded as long there is crime.