The images obtained from the cameras are protected by law and cannot be used in a way that violates the civil liberties of citizens. Yesil explains that surveillance cameras are not intended to monitor the public, but to monitor them and, therefore, to preserve public safety (40). Law enforcement cameras continue to pose ethical problems, even though they limit criminal activities in public areas. Despite the existence of positive results of police cameras in law enforcement, people still think that cameras are an invasion of privacy.
The increase in the number of citizens protesting against cameras increases the need to understand claims of invasion of privacy. The logic behind those who oppose cameras is based on the argument that they invade privacy because these cameras are always placed in public areas. In addition, police cameras are nothing more than tools; if citizens require the protection of their privacy, a law can be legislated that restricts the placement of cameras. The only people who should worry about the cameras are the suspects who have been dodging security officers (Matchett 200).
Opponents of law enforcement cameras also claim that installing cameras in social places is a violation of their civil freedom. In general terms, Hyatt (4) describes law enforcement cameras as tiny cameras that police officers attach to their uniforms or strategically place on the street to record video and audio while performing their daily tasks. In addition, the images captured by these cameras can allow police officers to access driving records, address and even social security data in the event that the driver has been arrested before. This would be possible because these cameras can detect gunfire and immediately alert security authorities to respond.
Those who oppose the use of these security cameras recognize the fact that privacy is the most complete and valued right among those who claim to be civilized. Therefore, the public nature of police cameras justifies the acceptance of this article's thesis that cameras are harmless in terms of invasion of privacy. Beyond the obvious reasons for rejecting these security devices, they emphasize that these cameras do not prevent crimes but simply report. Surveillance cameras are usually in a location prepared to detect many more minor crimes, such as graffiti or robbery, but the impact of the cameras cannot be precisely determined.
Cameras have helped reduce crime in a number of ways, refuting the argument that cameras are simply an investment in people's privacy. With these contributions to security, cameras improve security rather than an investment in people's privacy (Horng,. Those who oppose the installation of these cameras also argue that the security system can give the government more power than the people. In addition, security officers could reduce the rate of property crimes and violent crime on the streets with the support of cameras.