Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy?

Introduction

The past decade has seen a proliferation of security cameras in public places. According to the Security Industry Association, a trade group, surveillance cameras in the U.S. number in the millions. Video surveillance cameras are now so commonplace--in stores, shopping malls, parking garages, on city streets and above automated teller machines (ATMs)--that most people barely notice them. While some cameras are privately owned, others are owned and operated by police or government agencies (MSNBC.com).

At the same time, a vocal movement of privacy advocates, led by civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has been questioning the increased presence of surveillance cameras. Using a term from George Orwell's novel 1984, which imagined a future in which the government monitored and controlled its citizens completely, they argue that the expansion of video surveillance creates a "Big Brother" society in which people are constantly watched (www.hartfordadvocate.com).

Discussion

The expansion of video surveillance in recent years is partly due to advances in digital camera technology and partly to security concerns resulting from terrorist attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. In the wake of those attacks, a number of major U.S. cities have expanded their video surveillance capabilities. Since current law tends to permit video surveillance in public places, critics have argued that the video surveillance explosion makes it necessary for regulations or laws to be put into place regarding the use of surveillance cameras (www.businessweek.com).

Those who support expanded video surveillance argue that it gives police departments added power to protect their communities. They say that it has a proven track record of helping to prevent crime. Video cameras not only help in identifying perpetrators of crimes that have already taken place, but serve as a deterrent against other crimes, they assert (Los Angeles Daily News).

Supporters say that as long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned. They add that people who have not committed any crime have nothing to fear from video surveillance. And they argue that surveillance cameras tend to be popular with the public as an antiterrorism measure.

Critics of expanded video surveillance respond that it represents an increased intrusion on people's privacy. Even in public, they say, people tend to enjoy a degree of anonymity, but that protection is threatened by multitudes of cameras. They add that surveillance technology heightens the ...