CCTV

Watching your every move

Did you know that some countries are installing millions of CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras to film their citizens, hoping that this will reduce crime. In the UK, there are so many video cameras that people living there are filmed more than 300 times a day, on average. Some people argue that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from such surveillance, others say that it has gone too far and that it is an invasion of privacy. How would you feel about your government or police installing cameras to watch your every move?

Here is a BBC article (February 2002) to help you think... A CCTV camera

The vision of cameras watching your every move is close to becoming a reality, with analysts predicting a tenfold increase in CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) in the UK in the next five years. The business of surveillance is about to undergo a radical shift as digital cameras become commonplace. Even now, CCTV is the ever-present eye in shopping centres, railway stations and airports and it is most definitely watching you. According to statistics, the average citizen is caught on CCTV cameras 300 times a day. There are 25 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 2.5 million in the UK (about one camera for every 24 people).

Reduction of crime?

The UK Government is convinced of the benefits of CCTV. Hugh Marriage, the Home Office's crime reduction officer for the south-east of England, says it definitely reduces crime. "There is no doubt about the benefits. It tends to move offenders elsewhere so in a town centre with a good surveillance system you will still get some level of drug dealing for instance, but shoplifting will be eliminated because there are no shops outside of the area with the cameras," he explains. Not all criminologists agree with this view. A comprehensive study of the impact of CCTV in Glasgow found no evidence it reduced crime or the fear of crime. The government's interest in CCTV is not just about crime prevention, though. It also saves money. A court hearing with a guilty verdict saves around £3,000 to £5,000," said Mr Marriage. "And CCTV pictures means there have been an enormous increase in guilty verdicts."

The cartoons on this site are by New Zealand artist Chris Slane (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/PrivacyCartoons/main.asp) and are used with his permission.

Gmail

I'm adding this paragraph as it seems another good example of Big Brother has just appeared. It is Gmail, the email service of Google. At first glance it seems very attractive for it offers a huge amount of free space for your messages... but there is a catch.... Every message that you send will be 'read' by a computer that will try to figure out the theme of your message and will then attach an advertisement to the message which is related to the theme. For example, if you send a message to your mother to say that your cat is receiving medication for an eye infection then an advertisement for Viagra might be attached to the message...

If a person working for Google were to read your mail you would consider that to be an invasion of privacy, but is it also an invasion of privacy if a computer 'reads' your mail?

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3602745.stm for a relevant BBC article

Note: the first comments below were collected outside the context of the Safer Internet Day competition.

Alex Mackle
4ena

Despite reducing crime, CCTV is a direct invasion of privacy. Although this surveillance is in public areas, it is the first step towards a submissive and controlled society. The general public have the right to privacy in a public area. How long will it be before we are prosecuted for littering in a park because we were caught on CCTV? No one is denying that littering is wrong, but it will lead to a world without freedom or disobedience.

Christophe Cranz
s4dea

Hi, I would find it good, because it’s very efficient to observe people and through that there would be less crime here in Belgium. Like the last Crime, where the young boy was stabbed at the railway station, there weren’t cameras and none of the murderers were caught yet. In the old DDR, eastside of Germany, there was a camera system too like that in the UK, and the DDR was very crimeless, and the people lived safe, but not very happy. But I would prefer if they wouldn’t look with there cameras in the houses, only at streets and public places. And that with Gmail is a bad thing, but I think if it’s only a computer, it’s not that problematic, but also I think the personnel of Google can read the emails too, so it’s a bit strange.

Conor Smyth
4ENA

Millions of people's privacy is invaded every day, and not just by cameras. Paparazzi are constantly pestering famous people, never giving a minute of privacy to themselves. I do not see installing video cameras in public paces as an invasion of privacy, I think most people feel more safe knowing that there is some one watching over them (maybe this is the reason people invent religions).

Ahmed Khan
4enb

If someone was to film me 300 times a day, as mentioned above, then obviously it would tend to bother me. However, if this reduces crime rate, violence, drug dealing etc, then it may not be a bad idea. A person would think twice before committing such an act in an area with good surveillance system. On the contrary, citizens argue that this is an invasion of privacy, whereas these cameras are trying to protect them and form a safer environment to live in. Furthermore, I think we need to put the citizens first, and ask them whether the surveillance system should be used or if it is an invasion of privacy.

Vit Sramek
s4

I think that this is perfectly OK because people need no privacy on the streets so they don't need to mind if someone sees you on your way to the grocery shop. And I also think that this will decrease violence and crime.

Steven Anderson
s4ENB

I agree with Conor. Camera use is definitely abused everyday but I don't see putting cameras in public places as an invasion of privacy. there is no real reason to panic and get angry about people watching you because the only thing cameras can cause is a reduction in crime, or making it easier to identify the culprits.

Ioanna Stamatakis
s4elb

My opinion is that some cameras are needed today because many crimes happen like the murder that happened in the Brussels Central Station and most of the times the aggressors are not found. But everything has to be done with a limit so nothing has to be exaggerated. Cameras should be put in the parts that accidents have a chance to happen because we don't live to be watched but to live freely.

Lisa Barnes
S4ENA

CCTV in Belgium was what recently helped the police search for a murderer and accomplice - without that they might still be looking for the two hoodlums but thanks to the cameras the police were able to release pictures and films of them so although they are a bit of a nuisance they can also help.

Panagiotis Giannakakis
s4 elb

I do want others to watch me in the road, we still have too many cameras in the metro, in supermarkets, in restaurants, museums, banks, shopping centres and elsewhere...... but crime is still there. In America they have cameras in the streets and everywhere and they have 11000 dead by crimes every year. What can I say, I'm really safe with cameras?

Adonis B.
s3ela

I think that CCTV has to exist but not too much. In the station or in the airport cameras are useful but not in every street corner. Because a lot of the people don't want to be filmed and rightly so.

Ioannis M.
s3ela

I think that only criminals don't want to be watched when they are in a public area, but I 'm not sure that it does a good job. Anyway it isn't bad but it has to have limits.

K'Andra
HSMS

CCTV seems to be a problem with the innocent people. It is an invasion of privacy if you have to be watched walking down the street. I understand that it does keep crime down, but it is just wasting their batteries! Most of the stuff they are going to catch on film is five or six people hanging out. Like Adonis said it does have to exist, but it doesn’t have to exist as much as it does. The cameras are in the wrong places at the wrong time. They say they catch what they are supposed to catch, but they didn’t catch the offender.

Renee
HSMS

I have heard about our (United States) government monitoring many civilians e-mail since the terrorist’s attacks. Even though the government claims it’s for the safety of our country, it is still not right for them to hack into our privacy. I believe that our country should take precautions so that we are not victims of a terrorist attack, but invading people's privacy is wrong. We should protest this. Also, like CCTV, there are many surveillance cameras all over our country. I think this is also an invasion of our privacy. Filming people’s daily life, if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, is very wrong and disturbing.

Caprice
HSMS

The CCTV cameras are both a positive and negative presence. The positive things about them is that you can feel secure knowing that if someone mugs or attacks you in the street the police can just look up the cameras filming for that day and they can catch your attacker. The negatives are that you are no longer privileged to privacy on the street anymore. I would feel uncomfortable at first but, after a while with the cameras I think I would get more comfortable having them around.

THIS FORUM IS CLOSED

PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SUBMIT ANY COMMENT

Please read some of the comments at the bottom of this page before adding your own comment. Do not press the Enter key while filling in the form, otherwise the form may be submitted before you are ready. Use the TAB key to move from field to field. Please hit the Submit button once only. If you do not see your comment added to the list then please hit the Refresh button or, in Internet Explorer, press F5, or choose View/Refresh.