The 9/11 terrorist attack heralded an era of heightened monitoring as security agencies sought to improve the safety of Americans and national security. One of the aftermaths of the attack that became controversial was the increased use of law enforcement cameras. The use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for purposes of video surveillance has increased in the last two decades, raising concerns over privacy issues. In many developed countries, the use of this technique is one of the most effective methods of providing security to citizens. In that regard, cameras are placed in public places in order to monitor people’s movements and actions. Opponents argue that they violate the people’s right to privacy. On the other hand, proponents argue that they enhance security by acting as a deterrent to crime. Law enforcement cameras are not an invasion of privacy because they enhance security, they are installed only in public areas, and their use is protected by certain laws.
Enhancement of Public Safety
Cameras do not invade people’s privacy because their main purpose is to enhance public safety. The 9/11 attacks led to the implementation of more stringent security protocols in the United States, one of which was the increased use of surveillance tools (Hite and Malim 54). With terrorism as one of the major challenges that America faces, it is important to increase monitoring, especially in public places, so as to prevent attacks. Law enforcement cameras enhance policing work by aiding in surveillance and the collection of evidence (Hite and Malim 54). The footage that is recorded is a good source of evidence during investigations or court hearings (Fan 44). Citizens should not expect to enjoy privacy in public areas, and arguing that surveillance is a breach of privacy is misplaced. It is important to note that the cameras are installed for law enforcement purposes only. They are used as a tool for proactive security management as police officers can use them to prevent crimes before they happen or solve them after they take place.
The efficiency of security cameras in improving public safety is invaluable. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the public blamed the law enforcement agencies for their failure to prevent the invasion. Intelligence agencies were criticized for not possessing information that an international terror group was planning an attack. As an anti-terrorism measure, surveillance cameras were installed in public places for intelligence collection and enhanced monitoring of population movements (Hite and Malim 63). This move also improved the process of resource allocation with regard to security matters. For example, the analysis of data collected from surveillance gadgets enables police officers to identify crime-prone areas that need heightened law enforcement measures (Fan 49). It is evident that without the use of cameras in public areas, terrorism would still be a major challenge for America’s security agencies.
In certain jurisdictions, there are laws that limit what can and cannot be recorded in certain situations. For example, police departments have policies that govern the use of police body cameras. Some rules protect actions that have greater potential for abuse such as 1st amendment activities because of the increased threat of victimization because of one’s race or religion (Police Body Camera Policies). In the city of Austin, Texas, police officers are offered the choice to switch off their cameras in case they are dealing with a witness who is reluctant to talk. They are also not allowed to record in private areas such as restrooms and showers (Police Body Camera Policies). The use of body cameras to capture people exercising their religious or political beliefs as well as their constitutional rights to freedom of speech is prohibited. There are also limits on the use of facial recognition technology in order to avoid abuse (Hite and Malim 76). In many situations, police officers are required by law to notify the people they are interacting with that they are being recorded (Police Body Camera Policies). The public should not be worried about the invasion of privacy because police departments implement policies to ensure that the privacy of the citizens as well as that of the officers is protected.
Public Places are Not Private
Law enforcement cameras are not an invasion of privacy because the government installs them only in public places. It is unrealistic for an individual to expect to enjoy any privacy in a public place. Opposition to video surveillance would be valid if the government installed them in designated private places. Increased surveillance makes public places safer for utilization by the people. For example, cameras serve as deterrent mechanisms against criminal activities. An individual is not likely to engage in an illegal activity because they know that they are being watched (Fan 65). There are limitations to surveillance even in public places. For examples, cameras are not installed in places that people would expect to have some privacy such as in restrooms, first ad rooms, and showers (Hite and Malim 58). Moreover, many areas have signs that notify the public of the use of CCTV cameras.
There are laws that protect the privacy of the data collected. Therefore, the content cannot be used in any way or manner that violates the rights of American citizens. For example, the footage is accessible only to authorized personnel who are in law enforcement (Hite and Malim 98). Anyone else who wants to access it is required to present a formal request in accordance with state and federal laws. Moreover, only serious civil or criminal litigations make use of footage from CCTV cameras, thus protecting the privacy of citizens. It is right to say that they do not watch the people but watch out for the public because preserving the safety of citizens is one of government’s major responsibilities.
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
Opponents of law enforcement cameras argue that such surveillance tools invade privacy because they record the actions of people who have not given their consent. They argue that if someone is captured against their will, then that is a violation of their privacy. For example, police body cameras can document the private conversations of people in the surroundings, take footage of people in their private places, and capture people who inform them of criminal activities in the neighborhoods (Fan 71). In many jurisdictions, officers are not allowed to turn off their cameras unless they endanger the lives of the people that they are interacting with. As a result, they record the private conversations of people around them and violate their privacy. In addition, they capture the conversations of police officers that are supposed to be kept private.
These arguments are unconvincing because they ignore the innumerable contributions to public safety that law enforcement cameras have. As mentioned earlier, people should have little or no expectation of privacy in public. Therefore, they should have conversations or behave in ways that they are comfortable revealing to other people. Police departments have strict rules against recording citizens in their residences unless the officer is conducting an investigation (Fan 76). Therefore, the invasion of privacy at home is minimal and citizens have legal protections. The safeguarding of people’s safety is more important than their privacy. Therefore, law enforcement cameras should be encouraged as a security tool. An example of their successful use is in the identification of the individuals who were involved in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing incident (Fan 86). The suspects were arrested easily as the surveillance footage was highly useful.
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the use of law enforcement cameras has increased immensely. Surveillance tools are installed on every street and public buildings to improve the safety of the people. However, some people have criticized their use by claiming that they are an invasion of privacy. They argue that recording people without their consent is a violation of their constitutional right. Surveillance cameras are beneficial because they enhance public safety by deterring crime. They do not invade people’s privacy because they are installed only in public places and there are several laws that govern their use and the footage they capture. As such, they are used only for security purposes and any unauthorized access to the recorded footage is illegal. The government has taken measures to protect the privacy of its citizens by ensuring that cameras are not installed in residences as well as private places such as locker rooms, showers, and restrooms.
Fan, Mary. Camera Power: Proof, Policing, Privacy, and Audiovisual Big Data. Cambridge University press, 2019.
Hite, Michael, and Aili Malim. Cops, Cameras, and Crisis: The potential and the Perils of Police Body-Worn Cameras. New York University Press, 2020.
“Police Body Camera Policies: Privacy and First Amendment Protections.” Brennan Center for Justice, 2019, Web.