Security VS Privacy

In this technological and rapid evolving 21^st century, new tools have been introduced to facilitate homeland security and the safety of individuals. Cameras have gotten smaller, more portable, and hence cheaper. They are, more or less, being installed by all businesses. Recording devices have also been mounted on street corners and traffic lights to assure the protection of drivers and everyday pedestrians. This growing phenomenon has surfaced many arguments and complaints against it. Several concerned citizens feel that their privacy has been violated and stripped from them without consent at an alarming rate. In this case, the limitation to my founded argument is that of legal surveillance when those who are being taped are clearly informed and aware.

Surveillance cameras are, to some, a type of intrusion that violates the fourth amendment of guard against unreasonable searches. Individuals feel uncomfortable knowing they are being caught on tape while carrying out personal and private activities. These cases are usually the ones that are expressing unfaithfulness out in the open, going to an interview for new employment without the knowledge of their current employer, or even visiting psychiatrists or couple’s therapists. These are examples of people that certainly have something to hide and therefore strive for confidentiality. They are against cameras in any public areas and not just the reasonable private space (example being a bathroom stall) where they shouldn’t be permitted. Many have developed a “Big Brother fear” and are now categorized as the “functionally paranoid” thinking that they are being constantly watched anywhere they go. They don’t regard cameras as a “technological bounty hunter” but as a spy tool used to pry in the mundane lives of common folk. What they don’t see is that private and public companies that use this surveillance method do so for security purposes and don’t have the slightest interest in people’s personal lives. If all those who were paranoid put themselves in the positions of business owners and landlords, they would come to understand their purpose. They have to comprehend that privacy is what you would do in the comfort of your own home, with the doors closed and the blinds drawn; nothing else is private. Taking a step out into the world is entering public domain. Folks should grasp that reality. For all those who will still oppose this view, there has been technological advancement for their concern as well. A company named iSee has created an online program that lets you enter your current location and destination in order to reach it without being recorded or photographed along the way. This should evoke a positive reaction by all surveillance camera opposants.

On the other hand, supervision has been provided to people in parking lots, banks, malls, airports, and many more locations that accommodate a large number of civilians for legal defense and personal safety. Now factual evidence can be provided in a courtroom for those who have been wronged on tape. That should be considered a privilege since proof is at hand and there is no need for exhausted legal procedures. They are effective in prosecuting criminals that perform theft, abductions, physical violence, and assaults. The surveillance camera is used in order to fortify safety. It fights crime and rarely sides with the offender over of the law-abiding citizen. “The right to privacy enjoyed in one’s home does not extend to the streets.” claims J. Karl Miller, a retired colonel in the Marine Corps. People should sacrifice themselves being filmed or face being scanned in turn to protect them from criminals. On the topic of “traffic cams”, they have substantially slowed down traffic by warning the drivers with photographic signs that there is camera presence in the area. Drivers tend to hit the break pedal only by fear of being penalized. If the government wanted to simply spy on its general population it wouldn’t announce that they are watching. Also, mock video cameras have been set up outside stores fronts that do not record, and only stream live video that threaten loiters and criminals. The clear presence of these cameras deters them from hanging out in front of stores and causing trouble. Many might argue that this works for the specific business owner and that the persons in question causing trouble will go do it elsewhere. This will be hard to carry out if we consider that most, if not all, business owners do have security systems that involve cam-corders, either functional (recorded tape) or dysfunctional (streaming video).

Ultimately, “[security cameras] aren't there to spy on private lives. They are there to protect private lives.” as mentioned by honor’s student Cory Myrtle in his paper on invasion of privacy in 2001. Although countless people have questioned their presence and efficiency, these safety devices ensure a fair and secure community. Technology will always have its pros and cons but we cannot stop its development. Therefore, we should try to reap all of this tool’s benefits for what they’re worth.