Smile: You'Re On Not So Candid Camera

Smile: You're on Not So Candid Camera

It has been estimated that a person is filmed an average of 73 times per day as they walk through the streets of major New York cities (Marks, par.16). Video cameras are everywhere in our world today, in banks, stores, offices, Apartment buildings, on street corners and in countless other places. Each day we are being watched as we perform our daily duties and continue on with our lives, does this invade on our expected right to privacy? I believe that the answer is no, Surveillance cameras are essential to providing us a safe environment to work and live in. However to protect our personal privacy we need to have restrictions as to who is able to tape us and what is done with these tapes. In past years legislation has done a good job of protecting citizen's rights to privacy by regulating wiretaps and audio surveillance, it is now time that they create and enforce regulations regarding video surveillance in order to provide a balance between personal privacy and community safety.

Our constitution only protects our personal privacy when a "reasonable expectation to privacy" exists. We only truly have a right to privacy when we are in our own home because when we leave our home the reasonable expectation of privacy disappears (Black, par.4). When we are in a public place we do not posses the right to expect that what we do or say will remain private and the use of video cameras ensures this. For many years the government has protected our privacy by restricting the use of audio recording and wiretaps, but has done very little to protect it from the abuse of video surveillance. There are no standards that govern where cameras can be used, who gets to watch the tapes, and what happens to the tapes after they are viewed (Goodheart, par.6). Privacy advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that it is time for the government to step in and pass legislation to protect the privacy of Americans from the invasions of surveillance cameras. "As technology blurs the line between public acts and private conduct, the courts need to spell out where Big Brother is allowed to peek" (Black, par.1).

Video surveillance is everywhere in our country today, not just in the huge city's of New York, but in towns far and wide. According to experts there are currently over two million cameras watching us nation wide and this craze is continuing to grow (Murphy, par. 12). If there aren't restrictions placed on the use of Video surveillance the abundance of them will continue to expand and we may eventually be giving up any expectation of privacy that we now have. Before we sit back and accept that surveillance cameras are going to be an unavoidable part of our future we need to consider the idea that these invasive methods of surveillance could threaten our personal privacy if they are not regulated. As a country we need to decide how much of our personal privacy we are comfortable giving up in order to maintain a safe society.

Americans are fearful of violence and terrorism; surveillance cameras have helped ease these fears in millions of American citizens by providing a watchful eye over the streets and discouraging criminals. The security that the surveillance cameras provide makes people feel safe and because of this they are willing to expose their personal lives to complete strangers that have access to viewing the tapes.

Video surveillance has its benefits and drawbacks, we have established that is has the possibility to threaten our personal privacy but it can also help to protect us from criminals. Surveillance cameras have become a helpful aid to police forces because they are able to constantly monitor areas when police officers are not around. Our police forces do not have the funding or employees to patrol everywhere in the city at all times, the surveillance cameras can become extra eyes to help the law enforcement officers. The surveillance tapes from video cameras have been used as solid evidence in many court cases; when a criminal is caught on tape it is much harder for them to prove their innocence to a jury. Without surveillance tapes many criminals would not be caught and adequately punished. A picture is worth a thousand words and video surveillances are able to provide clear and convincing pictures for the authorities.

Surveillance cameras have been proven to lower crime rates in the areas that they are locate, but opponents of video surveillance argue that the crime is just relocated to other areas. "Cockroaches scatter when exposed to light" (Taylor, 45) and this is what happens to the criminals, they see the cameras and move to another area, but they still commit crimes. Opponents believe that overall surveillance cameras do not lower crime rates they just move the criminals. Some opponents also worry that video camera will place unnecessary suspicion on innocent passer Byers. Many surveillance cameras are placed in high crime areas and if the police view an innocent person in this area on different occasions they may begin to suspect and monitor them for illegal activities purely based on their location in the high crime area on different occasions. The suspension from the authorities can lead to harassment of law abiding citizens who might be forced to work in a dangerous area.

The government is not the only one taking advantage of the protection that surveillance cameras provide, many private individuals and companies are also using these technologies. According to the latest American Management Association survey on video surveillance thirty-three percent of major U.S. firms are monitoring their employees by using video surveillance (Hawkins, 52). Employers are trying to protect their companies from theft and ensure that their employees are fallowing company policy, surveillance camera do a great job of this. Many employers feel that they have a right to monitor the actions of their employees and believe that they are not infringing on the privacy of their workers. However employees have a different opinion and these cameras have become a common complaint among workers rights advocates. Employees feel that their bosses are spying on them, invading their privacy and treating them like an enemy rather then an advocate (Hawkins, 52). Currently