Introduction
Government surveillance is an increasingly controversial topic. While some believe that increased surveillance is the principal solution to the problem of crime, others consider it ineffective and questionable in terms of ethics. In particular, the main concern associated with the use of surveillance in crime prevention is that it abuses people’s right to privacy and confidentiality of information. This discussion has become particularly prominent after Edward Snowden blew the whistle, revealing that the U.S. National Security Agency has been illegally collecting personal data of Americans for over a decade. Today, law enforcement and related security agencies have access to people’s phones and online communication, as well as footage from CCTV cameras. The scope of surveillance today is rather worrying for a lot of people, especially since there is little evidence of its positive effect on crime reduction. The present paper will seek to argue that greater surveillance is not a desirable answer to the problem of crime and that other solutions are required to reduce crime rates in the long term. In particular, the paper will consider the cost-effectiveness of surveillance, as well as its effects on privacy and security.
CCTV and Crime
Research shows that surveillance of public spaces using CCTV cameras causes displacement of crime and is not suitable for preventing most types of crime. Although CCTV cameras are widely used in many settings, CCTV surveillance is not universal. When some areas or facilities are equipped with CCTV cameras, and some are not, crime will most likely prevail in places that do not have CCTV. For instance, research by Cerezo (2013) showed that equipping certain districts or streets with CCTV increases crime rates in neighboring areas with no CCTV. Some people believe that a solution to this problem is to establish universal CCTV surveillance so that there are no gaps in coverage. However, the effectiveness of CCTV surveillance itself is rather questionable. According to Welsh and Farrington (2014), in a large-scale US-based study, the use of CCTV in parking lots was the only effective application of the technology; in other settings, the results were insignificant. Therefore, even a universal CCTV will most likely fail to address the problem of crime, and thus extensive use of it would not contribute to security and will not be cost-effective.
Online Surveillance
Online surveillance and the use of ‘bid data’ to prevent crime are time-consuming and costly while having little effect on crime reduction. The use of ‘big data for crime prevention is a relatively new approach that followed the popularization of social networks and Internet communication as a whole. Indeed, many people use social media and e-mails as much as their phone, so gathering users’ information from online sources might help in preventing crimes. However, there are numerous challenges to online surveillance. For example, Gilmour (2014) reports the lack of clear jurisdiction for using online data in investigations and technical capacities of law enforcement as the key issues faced by online surveillance. Some argue that by spending additional resources on training and technology development, the government will be able to overcome these challenges and use online surveillance for crime prevention. In particular, Mateescu et al. (2015) state that new monitoring tools have made it possible to access and analyze large volumes of information in a short period of time. Nevertheless, one key challenge in online surveillance remains unaddressed: cyberspace is constantly evolving, and criminals constantly develop and use tools to mask their activity or identity. Therefore, online surveillance and ‘big data analysis will most likely require considerable financial resources while still being inefficient in the long term.
Privacy and Confidentiality
In addition, government surveillance counters people’s privacy and confidentiality of information while creating opportunities for abuse of data. This is one of the key concerns regarding the use of private data for crime prevention. The fact that individual employees in tens of thousands of agencies have access to citizens’ private information serves to diminish the line between private and public, thus violating people’s right to privacy. In addition, the use of personal data by the government remains highly unregulated and is not transparent, which is why it could lead to abuse of data (Rubinstein, Nojeim & Lee 2014). Surveillance was allegedly used to monitor phone and email conversations of politicians, and thus information obtained from surveillance can be used to impact the political climate of the country (Kelley 2015). The government insists that it is possible to establish sufficient controls and ensure that surveillance does not violate privacy or confidentiality. Nevertheless, this is untrue, as it is rather difficult to distinguish between confidential data and private data that can be used by law enforcement. If such distinction was made and the government imposed laws governing surveillance and the subsequent use of information, this would most likely reduce the effectiveness of surveillance, making it inefficient.
Surveillance Society
Another reason why surveillance is not a desirable answer to the problem of crime is that the government’s support of global surveillance will lead to the development of a ‘surveillance society, which will have a negative effect on people and businesses. ‘Surveillance society’ is a term that was introduced in the late 1990s when the government’s use of people’s private data became obvious. Von Drehle (2013) explains that, in a surveillance society, there will be no such thing as private and public information, as all data will be easily accessible to at least a number of organizations. CCTV, monitoring of online activity, tracking of phone and email communication all contribute to the creation of a surveillance society. Undoubtedly, this trend could affect individuals and organizations in various ways.
However, certain people argue that such a future is not a danger but rather a new step in the evolution of society. Indeed, it seems logical that, when no such thing as private information exists, it might be easier to control and prevent crime. Nevertheless, the costs associated with the development of a surveillance society expand far beyond its impact on society. In particular, surveillance is connected to a number of economic implications. Kehl et al. (2014) report on the impact of the NSA’s strategy on the economic development of the United States, stating that surveillance has a damaging influence on domestic business and international cooperation. The latter is partly due to the distrust between American companies and their prospective partners in Europe and the rest of the world in the wake of the 2013 surveillance scandal. These implications have the potential to undermine the development of the country’s economy, which, in turn, prevents further evolution of the society instead of facilitating it.
Surveillance and Safety
Lastly, based on the discussion above, it is evident that increased surveillance does not make people feel safer. One of the key goals of a successful crime reduction strategy is to create a visible effect on the community, thus causing people to be less fearful of crime. Greater surveillance would fail to do that. The main reason for this is that it does not have a significant effect on crime. As mentioned above, CCTV and online surveillance are not cost-efficient and are not viable solutions to the problem of crime. Surveillance has a set of distinctive flaws, and some might argue that resolving these flaws would lead to a better, more secure society. If surveillance was occurring in a different context, this could be true. However, at present, surveillance generates more concerns than benefits. In countries that are notable for the use of surveillance technologies, people fear that their private information will be exposed or abused. This shows that, for now, surveillance fails to fulfill its promise of making the world safer. Instead, it introduces a new threat while doing little to address the problem of crime.
Conclusion
Overall, greater surveillance is not a desirable way of reducing crime rates. One of its fundamental fallacies is that it does not have a prominent effect on security and is costly, which makes it highly inefficient. Both CCTV and government surveillance violate people’s privacy, and thus the ethics of this option is highly questionable. Moreover, incorporating surveillance in the government’s strategy of crime reduction affects economic development and business success. Therefore, although using some types of surveillance in certain areas (e.g., CCTV in park lots) would be beneficial, relying on it for minimizing crime rates is unwise. Developing new, innovative approaches to address crime rates at local and international levels is critical to ensure successful crime reduction with no implications for the economy, businesses, and citizens.
Reference List
Cerezo, 2013, ‘CCTV and crime displacement: a quasi-experimental evaluation’, European Journal of Criminology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 222-236.
Gilmour, S 2014, ‘Policing crime and terrorism in cyberspace: an overview’, European Review of Organised Crime, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 143-159.
Kelley, MB 2015, ‘Egregious cases of US Government employees abusing databases to spy on Americans’, Business Insider, Web.
Kehl, D, Bankston, K, Greene, R & Morgus, R 2014, Surveillance costs: the NSA’s impact on the economy, internet freedom & cybersecurity, Web.
Von Drehle, D 2013, ‘The surveillance society’, Time, Web.
Rubinstein, IS, Nojeim, GT & Lee, RD 2014, ‘Systematic government access to personal data: a comparative analysis’, International Data Privacy Law, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 96-119.
Welsh, BC & Farrington, DP 2014, ‘CCTV and crime prevention’, in G Bruinsma & D Weisburd (eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 310-319.