Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Surveillance and crime prevention
Surveillance and crime prevention
Surveillance technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Surveillance and crime prevention
Have you ever felt concerned of being watched and not knowing when or where? This term is called surveillance. Surveillance is a close observation that monitors behavior and activities through cameras. The purpose of surveillance is to influence, manage, or to protect individuals at all cause. Since technology has grown over the past years, surveillance has become easier to monitor through time. Surveillance is used by the government and owners in order to prevent crimes and to protect others. Because surveillance began as a way to point out the cyclical nature of domestic surveillance, it helped combat the dangers of the US leaders. Today surveillance is used for a similar purpose; for example, it is a way to protect and monitor others behaviors
For example, in “Harvard Journal of Law and Technology” Megan Behrman discusses the benefits of having gang members’ use social media in public. For example, these gang members that use their social media in public which allows police officers to look over at the surveillance cameras as a way to track them down. As it also allows law enforcement to investigate without violating the Fourth Amendment. In addition to gathering data on social media and using it for databases, law enforcement can lawfully use this information to go based on their facial features and take them into trial. This made law enforcements responsible in the use of technologies while still developing meaningful relationships with citizens. These cameras were used as a reminder that there is regulations after all. Overall, the strategies that law enforcement provide give people the satisfaction that they are
For example, most of us have gotten in trouble by employees for bouncing a basketball inside a store. We do it because we assume there is no employee watching us, yet they are. As a matter of fact, cameras work the same way. Knowing that there is someone behind a specific camera is intimidating because you are not be able to tell when they are watching. Penney, a researcher, took this study further and did research at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet. He presented a study on effect of Americans’ behavior. He stated that “the fact that you won’t do things, means you will self-censor, are the worst effects of pervasive surveillance.” He gives the example of how China has one of the world’s largest camera surveillance. By all means, it is allowing them to self-censor and not showing their true self. However the cameras are working in allowing the people to feel intimidated causing them to always do the right thing. It sets boundaries and demonstrates individuals where the “line ends.” Therefore, he argues that the effectiveness of surveillance will not stop crimes or terrorism, but will control the
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Have you ever heard of the idea of body-mounted cameras on police officers? If not, David Brooks will introduce you to the idea that was discussed in an article from New York Times called “The Lost Language of Privacy”. In this article, the author addressed both the positive and negative aspects of this topic but mostly concerned with privacy invasion for Americans. Although that is a valid concern but on a larger scale, he neglected to focus greatly on the significant benefits that we all desire.
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
Richards, Neil M. "The Dangers Of Surveillance." Harvard Law Review 126.7 (2013): 1934-1965. Academic Search Elite. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
The researcher hypothesizes that the use of body-cameras on police officers would reduce the instances of gainful communication between civilians and law enforcement. The null-hypothesis is that the use of body-cameras on police officers will have no effect on gainful communication between civilian and law enforcement. In determining the implications of how body-cameras effects civilian behavior, the research will include a sampling survey of criminal justice students and information gathered from journal documents related to research on police body-cameras.
Many people live in fear that they are constantly being watched. Michael Jackson sang it best in the 80 's by saying, "I always feel like, somebody 's watching me," in his hit song with Rockwell. That 's exactly what the NSA and other government organizations are doing today with domestic surveillance. Everywhere Americans go and every corner they turn there is a camera, and every website or email they send is being monitored closely. So what can society do about this? Educate others on the situation and stand up for what is right. Some people believe they must give up some freedoms for protection, but at what cost? What is happening in America is not what the founding fathers fought for. Domestic surveillance should not be allowed because
Surveillance is the monitoring of behaviour. In addition, surveillance system is the process of monitoring the behaviour of people, objects or processes within systems for conformity to expected or desired norms in trusted systems for security control (Cohen and Medioni, 1999). Video surveillance systems have existed 25 years ago whereby it started with 100% analogue system and gradually becoming digital system. The closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera is the most popular video surveillance because of its reliability and low price. The camera does not broadcast images but it records them, so that user can always check to see what occurred while they were away. It is widely used at public spaces and residences for security purposes.
In the modern day era, we find in society a ubiquitous usage of technology that seems to be never ending and forever growing. Included with this notion, the broad subject of surveillance is of course included. Contemporary surveillance, or more specifically technological surveillance, has been described as ambiguous; meaning that it is often misunderstood or open to different interpretations. The representation of surveillance within popular culture has played an impacting role on how we as a society perceive it and this raises certain questions that may reflect back on to society. The 1998 film Enemy Of The State directed by Tony Scott, Starring Will Smith, Gene Hackman and Jon Voight is considered to be a ‘spy-thriller’ blockbuster. Its central themes explore a range of surveillance techniques and equipment and also provides some insights, no matter how realistic or unrealistic they may be, into the real life security organisation; The National Security Agency (NSA). Using this film as an example and analysing how these themes are represented will hopefully allow us to key these ideas back to modern surveillance theories and practices.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
Surveillance technology has improved abundantly overtime. It is so advanced in today’s society, to where you could be sitting in the comfort of your own home, and not know that you are being watched through your webcam. Being as though it is developed to capture ones every move it can be a bit invading. Although surveillance technology is a great resource for many things such as keeping society safe, it could lead to negative outcomes including: invasion of privacy and identity theft. Surveillance technology has grown vigorously since the attack on 9/11. For example, there has said to have been a proliferation of surveillance cameras that have been installed in public places such as Times Square and the nation’s capital. Also Britain being
That’s My Tracker.”, written by Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan, indicates that the, “...tracking device that happens to make calls...” are exploiting our identities far more than we know (Maass and Rajagopalan,P.129). It was shared that cellphone carriers disclosed and “...responded 1.3 million times last year to law enforcement requests for call data...” without warrants (Maass and Rajagopalan,P.129). These reporters enlighten that all the “explosion of GPS technology and smartphone apps...” as well as “...frictionless sharing...”or “...surveillance has caught our attention so much so that it blinded us from the ugly truth (Maass and Rajagopalan,P.129). In actuality, modern technology such as cellphones and surveillance cameras allow the government to know of it 's citizens location, conversations, and actions—“...treasured by police departments and online advertisers...”(Maass and Rajagopalan,P.130). The mania of technology and “...these invasive services have proved irresistible to consumers…” writes Paul Ohm (Maass and Rajagopalan,P.129). He states that the overly advertised technology is like a magnet to consumers because it continues to be bought and sold regardless of the facts
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.