#4 on 201

I believe that video surveillance in today’s society is sort of a double edged sword. On one hand it is completely obvious that video cameras at convenience shops and in stores are necessary to catch criminals in the act and to keep their stores in business. On the other hand, cameras and other monitoring devices such as phone taps can also be seen as extremely obtrusive to the freedoms given to us in the bill of rights. Which of these statements is a correct view of today’s surveillance procedures?

First, let us take a look at the positive side of modern day surveillance. The increasing technology in today’s video cameras and such is continuously decreasing the size and price of these objects, while making them more efficient and clearer in picture at the same time. For this reason, they availability of these surveillance machines is becoming more and more widespread. Even owners of small stores can afford to purchase video surveillance, and this is a good thing. Robbers and thieves are now more easily caught with facial recognition technology. Nowadays all police cars have these same cameras in them as well, and this is a good thing. Not only can criminals be recorded in their defiance more easily, but officers are kept in line as well because of the threat of the camera’s eye. In these ways, surveillance has become effective and useful.

Although surveillance has its uses, it also has its downfalls as well. One of the more obvious and controversial of these is the recent passing of the Patriot Act. According to this act, the U.S. government can use any means of surveillance necessary, from wire taps to full on shadowing, to help catch terrorists and such high profile criminals. To many Americans this is seen as not only obtrusive but downright unconstitutional, too, and rightfully so. Cameras can also be seen making their way into more unnecessary and private places every day. A phone camera was snuck into the execution of Saddam Hussein. What has the world come to when cameras are invading private sanctities such as the church? Luckily cameras and phones are now prohibited in most courtrooms, but as the amount of these devices increase more and more arguments of privacy and rights will be heard.

Overall, surveillance is a divided issue. People want to be able to be safe in public places and prevent robberies, but these same people also want to stop the encroachment of surveillance devices on their personal lives. In order to have one the other must make sacrifices. On such a moot point as this, it will really be up to societies reaction as a whole and the governments interpretation of it to reach an equilibrium of surveillance and privacy.