Introduction
Freedom has always been taken as one of the central values peculiar to human society. It preconditioned the formation of democratic states that cultivate this concept and consider it the fundamental idea for the further rise. At the same time, privacy can be viewed as a dimension of freedom as it means the ability to avoid undesired attention and remain free in actions. That is why the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy for all citizens regardless of their race, gender, or social status. Unfortunately, today, because of the sophistication of the modern world and international relations, the ideas mentioned above are often taken as inferior to the concepts of security and control. The use of surveillance or law enforcement cameras is viewed as an effective way to create a safe environment and protect citizens; however, it should be taken as a rude intrusion in individuals’ private life and invasion of the right of privacy.
Background
Proponents of the extensive use of surveillance systems emphasize the fact that the state and its citizens face multiple threats every day, and these cameras are the only way to guarantee protection. The central idea of this approach is the early detection of crime, monitoring of public locations to minimize risks, and search for suspects or criminals by using innovative solutions (Schuck 42). The fast evolution of technologies and their improvement mean the broad use of specific cameras that provide security services or police with an opportunity to trace people’s movements and remain informed about their actions. The effectiveness of this method in reducing crime remains disputable; however, there are multiple factors evidencing its unethical nature and the high risk of intrusion in the private life of people.
Disregard of Civil Liberties
The first argument against the use of law enforcement cameras is the disregard of basic civil liberties and the dangerous precedent that emerges due to this practice. Freedom and privacy are core ideas for the Western democratic society, and they form the mentalities of people. However, today, there is an attempt to reduce the importance of these aspects by employing the ideas of security and safety (Richards 1934). The state and authorities use individuals’ fears to introduce surveillance systems and make them an integral part of people’s lives. The disregard of this threat will create a precedent meaning that the fundamental rights of people can be infringed in the future to achieve certain goals.
Infringement of the Right to Privacy
In such a way, law enforcement cameras disregard the Constitution and its postulates stating that the right to privacy is guaranteed to all people living in the state. Although at the moment only public places are equipped with these devices, the fact remains. People cannot feel relaxed or free because of the high risk of being recorded by cameras placed in various locations (Richards 19). When people are in public, they already experience a certain amount of privacy loss; however, it is their own conscious decision, while speaking about cameras, citizens do not have an opportunity to choose whether to be supervised or not. That is why it can be viewed as a rude infringement of their fundamental liberties.
Total Surveillance
Discussing the problem of law enforcement cameras, it is also important to consider the global context and the possible outcomes associated with the further evolution of this method. Today, a significant number of public places are equipped with surveillance devices collecting and transferring data (Schuck 43). However, by accepting this practice, people can also accept the idea of total surveillance and make it legitimate, which will result in more significant infringement of rights and liberties (Richards 1936). That is why it is vital to emphasize the unacceptability of governmental control of different aspects of people’s lives without their permission or specific reasons for it. Otherwise, humanity can evidence the development of a dystopian scenario with the constant control of all individuals’ actions and movements.
Dara Breach Concerns
Finally, the development of law enforcement cameras gives rise to data breach concerns. The existing systems allow for constant surveillance with unlimited capabilities, including the collection of personal information and characteristics that make individuals unique. It means that this sort of data can be stored and processed by authorities for different purposes. However, there is a high chance of mistakes or breaches of data caused by malefactors or hackers who need personal information to commit a certain crime (Schuck 55). There are multiple examples of such scenarios, which proves the existence of vulnerabilities and insider threats peculiar to the system. (IFSEC Global). For this reason, law enforcement cameras might also precondition the loss of personal data or its use by third parties to perform illegal actions.
Opposing Views
It should be noted that regardless of these arguments, there are still multiple adherers to the discussed idea. They emphasize the existence of numerous threats, such as the terrorist one, and the need for risk management tools that can help to avoid accidents and protect citizens (Robertiello 45). In accordance with this vision, law enforcement cameras are considered a potent strategy to achieve this goal as they provide up-to-date data about individuals in public places and help to trace their movements (Robertiello 46). Moreover, they can be employed to find wanted criminals and prevent them from causing harm to people surrounding them.
However, the relevance of this reasoning can be doubted. Cameras might only deter criminal activity and not prevent it, which means that they record personal activities just in case, or to provide evidence to prove the guilt of a malefactor. However, it means that the threat to citizens still remains high as surveillance systems cannot respond to it, they just record information. Moreover, cameras are not capable of following rules and differentiating between actions of law-obedient citizens and criminals. That is why their intervention in the private life of people is not selective, and all people suffer from it. At the same time, the effectiveness of risk mitigation and management remains low or disputable.
Conclusion
In such a way, regarding the information provided above, it is possible to conclude that law enforcement cameras are a rude violation of basic people’s rights and their liberties. Invasion of privacy occurs when both law-abiding persons and criminals are filmed and face the risk of a personal data breach. Regarding multiple security concerns that are offered as a justification for the further use of these systems, the problem still remains topical as people are deprived of the freedom of choice. This precedent can result in the appearance of new contradictory issues and the establishment of total control. For this reason, it is vital to discuss the problem and find appropriate solutions to avoid further deterioration of the situation.
Works Cited
IFSEC Global. “Role of CCTV Cameras: Public, Privacy and Protection.”IFSEC Global, 2020. Web.
Richards, Neil. “The Dangers of Surveillance.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 126, no. 17, 2013, pp. 1934-1965. Web.
Robertiello, Gina, editor. The Use and Abuse of Police Power in America: Historical Milestones and Current Controversies. ABC-CLIO, 2017.
Schuck, Amie. “Prevalence and Predictors of Surveillance Cameras in Law Enforcement: The Importance of Stakeholders and Community Factors.”Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 28, no. 1, 2017, pp. 41–60. Web.