Essay on Privacy Rights: Cameras in Public Places

Do Cameras Put in Public Places Infringe on People’s Privacy?

True freedom is impossible without reasonable limits, and true democracy is impossible without democratic legal guidelines. This is the reason why governments should use every possible chance to protect citizens from terrorist attacks, murderers, shooting, kidnapping, robbery, and uprisings. Otherwise, very soon democracy may become anarchy, peace might be changed from tensions and anxiety of wartime, and freedom of speech and expression can become a burden for all individuals of the country.

Nonetheless, some people still believe that cameras placed in public places are nothing but marks of a totalitarian regimen, that they infringe on people’s privacy, and that true freedom doesn't need such devices. Notions like these are, actually , groundless. Hence, cameras put into public places do not infringe on people’s privacy but, instead, enforce laws to safeguard the civil population and stop terrorist attacks.

To begin with, it is essential to understand why security, surveillance, and CCTV cameras became so commonly used under western culture. According to Allison Linn, “in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the market for video surveillance cameras boomed in the United States and around the world” (2011). Quite simply, fear and anxiety may be the main reason why people need cameras. People realized that laws usually do not guarantee security, governments usually do not always protect citizens, and that some tools should really be used in order to enforce the laws and help the governments. Of course, cameras on the streets, parks, squares, along with other public places can create an illusion that there surely is no privacy at all, that life in the town is similar to the life span in an aquarium where the fishes are constantly observed and examined by the curious observers. Moreover, facial recognition intimidates people given that they literally can't hide from “the eye of omniscience” of the authorities and security services. Civil-liberties activists rise against using facial-recognition cameras because such means, within their opinion, kill democracy, privacy, and human dignity, and instead create a society by the exemplory case of dystopian novels with the “Big Brother” who watches people constantly and every-where. non-etheless, this idea is not correct. Heather Kelly argues that “facial-recognition computer software and other technologies are making security-camera pictures more valuable to police. ” No body wants to harass civilians or control their lives; the only real reason for having cameras is security and law. Like after the bombings at the Boston Marathon in 2013, security authorities managed to obtain vitally important information regarding the two suspects who killed several people who have homemade bombs. Only three days later, the FBI knew who was simply responsible for that terrorist act because “authorities had to sift through a mountain of footage from government surveillance cameras, private security cameras and imagery shot by bystanders on smartphones” (Kelly). Consequently , there are many reasons to use cameras in public places.

To conclude, cameras in public areas do not infringe on people’s privacy as the only reason behind having such tools is maintaining the freedom, democracy, and security of civilians. People shouldn't be afraid of facial-recognition since it can affect only criminals and terrorists. Those that do not plot violent actions should be thankful for police tools, such as for example cameras.

Works Cited

Kelly, Heather. “After Boston: The professionals and Cons of Surveillance Cameras. ” CNN, 2013, https://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/26/tech/innovation/security-cameras-boston-bombings/index.html.
Linn, Allison. “Post 9/11, Surveillance Cameras Every-where. ” NBCNews.com, 2011, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44163852/ns/business-us_business/t/post-surveillance-cameras-everywhere/#.XGwsBO5R0dU. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.