These days, an increasingly large number of people are concerned about their security, and so there is more public surveillance than ever before. However, others believe that this threatens our privacy. discuss whether this is correct.
To start with, supporters of public surveillance usually have two main arguments. The first one is prevention. It is often argued that having cameras everywhere in public spaces. including streets and transportation areas, discourages potential criminals from committing crimes, as having them increases the chance of capture. This is the second reason. More cameras increases the likelihood of recording a criminal either in the act, or immediately before and after their crime, which in turns leads to identification and eventual capture. Given both of these points, it is no wonder that police are keen on surveillance.
That said, regardless of how necessary public cameras are, privacy advocates make several vital points. First, they rightly point out that some spaces must be off limits. For instance, no one wants a government employee looking into your home. Second, there are genuine concerns about people knowing where you are at all times. In many places, this could threaten the right of freedom of movement. Third and finally, there is the matter of trusting the police and government. Many governments have used technology against their own people. What is to stop them from doing the same with public cameras?
To conclude, while there are genuine security needs that require public surveillance, the privacy of the people must be protected as much as possible. In my view, public surveillance is a necessary evil and therefore, while it must be exist, there must be reasonable restrictions regarding what can be recorded, as well as use of the data and who can access it.