Arguments Against Video Surveillance

As the use of CCTV cameras increases across the globe, so does the debate over their numbers and motives. In a previous post, Arguments for Video Surveillance, we looked at four arguments for video surveillance. These arguments included peace of mind, loss prevention, crime deterrent, and crime solving.

But what about the other side of the fence? The ACLU has an entire Web site, You Are Being Watched, devoted to the “high costs of camera surveillance systems, both in terms of money and civil liberties,” and there are a large number of individuals and other groups out there that oppose “big brother” watching our every move.

So, what are some of the arguments against the use of CCTV surveillance systems?

1. Invasion of Privacy – This is the most common argument against surveillance systems. While video surveillance is more commonly accepted in public areas, this sentiment comes into play with the use of covert and hidden cameras in almost every case.
2. Mistrust – The use of security cameras in your home or business can make its occupants feel mistrusted. If your family members or employees are under constant surveillance, there is likely to be hostility and animosity in the air.
3. Not Proven Effective – Studies done in California and London have found that security cameras had little to no effect on reducing the crime rate. With an increase in the sheer number of cameras in many large cities, many replacing human security guards, this is a strong argument that will be the main target of many opposing groups.
4. Misuse and Abuse – The footage captured by CCTV cameras becomes susceptible to abuse and misuse by those who have access to it. For instance, the footage can be used to discriminate against people and for voyeurism. In the age of the internet, this is another huge deal, as can be seen by all of the “hilarious” YouTube videos out there. I doubt the subjects would find most of them as funny.

All of these reasons are valid arguments against CCTV surveillance. There are many cities and countries that have massive surveillance systems, and we will likely see a large increase in public monitoring in the near future, so the more the public knows about the industry and their rights, etc, the more everyone can prepare for when it happens in your little corner of the globe.

Do you have any additional arguments against the use of security camera systems? What are your thoughts? Will you fight them, or open your “public” life up willingly to being observed? Let us know – we’d love to hear from you.

Arguments against Video Surveillance

As the use of CCTV cameras increases across the United States and globe, so does the debate over their numbers and motives. In a previous post, Arguments for Video Surveillance, we looked at four arguments for video surveillance. These arguments included peace of mind, loss prevention, crime deterrent, and crime solving.

But what about the other side of the fence? The ACLU has an entire Web site, You Are Being Watched, devoted to the “high costs of camera surveillance systems, both in terms of money and civil liberties,” and there are a large number of individuals and other groups out there that oppose “big brother” watching our every move.

So, what are some of the arguments against the use of CCTV surveillance systems?

1. Invasion of Privacy – This is the most common argument against surveillance systems. While video surveillance is more commonly accepted in public areas, this sentiment comes into play with the use of covert and hidden cameras in almost every case.
2. Mistrust – The use of security cameras in your home or business can make its occupants feel mistrusted. If your family members or employees are under constant surveillance, there is likely to be hostility and animosity in the air.
3. Not Proven Effective – Studies done in California and London have found that security cameras had little to no effect on reducing the crime rate. With an increase in the sheer number of cameras in many large cities, many replacing human security guards, this is a strong argument that will be the main target of many opposing groups.
4. Misuse and Abuse – The footage captured by CCTV cameras becomes susceptible to abuse and misuse by those who have access to it. For instance, the footage can be used to discriminate against people and for voyeurism. In the age of the internet, this is another huge deal, as can be seen by all of the “hilarious” YouTube videos out there. I doubt the subjects would find most of them as funny.

All of these reasons are valid arguments against CCTV surveillance. There are many cities and countries that have massive surveillance systems, and we will likely see a large increase in public monitoring in future, so the more the public knows about the industry and their rights, etc, the more everyone can prepare for when it happens in your little corner of the globe.

Do you have any additional arguments against the use of security camera systems? What are your thoughts? Will you fight them, or open your “public” life up willingly to being observed? Let us know – we’d love to hear from you.

Digital revolutionizes video surveillance

With the Internet revolution and the ever-increasing presence of Local Area Networks, technology took great strides in video surveillance in the 1990’s. Analog camera tubes were replaced with CCD (Charged Coupled Devices) and digital cameras became affordable for most people.

This combination meant that video surveillance could do two things: go live over the Internet or a closed network for surveillance and provide clearer, crisper images that could be tracked and manipulated easily. For law enforcement, digital surveillance meant it was much easier to zoom in on images, track particular scenes and enhance features.

A digital camera “views” the scene in front of it, broadcasts the video images as a digitized signal over a LAN line (Local Area Network) where it’s then transmitted to a computer or server. The server in turn manages all of this information. Depending upon the software used to manage the digital images, it can record, display or retransmit the images to anywhere in the world.

The software package can easily be upgraded to allow for analyzing data, selecting specific “flagged” items to watch for and a host of other functions, making it a truly customizable security tool.

True IP-based digital surveillance uses CCD cameras that use signal processing that send packetized video streams over the LAN through a Cat 5 cable rather than a coax cable network, utilizing greater bandwidth and standard TCP/IP communication.

It also provides more intelligent data mining and information retrieval. If security is an issue, full digital surveillance also offers the added advantage of data encryption opportunities to protect against image tampering -- something not possible with analog recording.