The pros and cons of video surveillance Today, more or less in different countries, it doesn’t matter if you take a walk in the streets, go to a store, or maybe visit a friend’s home, you will most likely end up on a videotape. Video surveillance is a highly debated subject all around the world. Some say that video surveillance is necessary and some say that it’s an invasion of privacy. Who’s right? According to Will Bryne in his article Orwell rolls in his grave: Britain’s endemic surveillance cameras talk back published May 30 2007 Britain is the most surveilled state in the west, but most of the people living there is ok with it. And Harris Poll did a study in America which showed that 96% of the people living there taught that video surveillance was a good thing. Christine Bartell has put together the most common arguments for videos surveillance in her article Arguments and Reasons For Using Video Surveillance published in January 2010.
According to Bartell video surveillance gives the citizens a peace of mind. She writes that having a camera always watching you gives you some inner peace. You know that if a crime scene occurs the police are not far away and if you leave your home there is at least something watching it.
Bartell also writes that it can provide crime deterrent. If someone is thinking of making a crime, maybe rob someone, if the one thinking of committing the crime spots a camera it’s likely that he or she re consider doing the crime. But if the criminal do commit to the crime, video surveillance can help solving the case, which is Christine Bartell’s fourth argument for video surveillance. Cameras can be a huge part in solving a crime. You can see when it’s done, who did it (in some cases not), and if there were any witnesses.
In the article she points out that video surveillance is really useful for companies wanting to monitor and keep an eye on the productivity. They can have cameras watching...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document