On a positive note, self-surveillance devices can also protect the innocent from unjust procedures by providing them with an alibi (Dennis, 2008, p. 353). In other words, these gadgets have the potential to safeguard us from jail time. For example, a man named Hasan Elahi was frustrated with always being detained for his appearance and mobility after the 9/11 attacks, so he decided to deal with this by using his smartphone’s map to indicate to officers the exact spot he was at during the time an event took place with even taking pictures to provide evidence that he was not involved in any crime that he was suspected to be in (Dennis, 2008, p. 352). For this reason, Elahi’s self-surveillance is both a measure of safety and a hassle for him as he is forced to document his life, so that he is not questioned for every move he makes because of his looks and lifestyle (Dennis, 2008, p. 352). Even though self-surveillance technologies can create an alibi it unfortunately becomes a matter of privilege as those who are considered the “norm” are not scrutinized as much as those who stand out (Kang et al., 2011, p. 34). With that being said, self-surveillance starts to affect powerless individuals even though this is not how the gadgets were designed to be used (Dennis, 2008, p. 352). Instead the purpose of using these devices was for us to use them to take initiative in our protection without expecting others to do it for us (Dennis, 2008, p. 352). Disappointingly, it seems that our intentions become lost in the process as self-surveilling tools become an instrument in which we can prejudge those who we believe seem likely to have committed a crime or will likely commit one in the future (Dennis, 2008, p. 352). On account of this unsettling findings it is crucial that we do not always trust technology to answer all of our problems rather it should be used as an additional source of knowledge (Goodyear et al., 2017, p. 2). Overall, as long as self-surveillance devices are used by mature human beings we can see that technology can prevent and protect us from any form of threat that might come our way (Dennis, 2008, p. 350).
The way we appear on social media is not usually the way we look or behave in real life. The
Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.
To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.
There are a lot of incidents that happen between police, and criminals. Always a mix up, confusion, miscommunication, and sadly, police brutality, but police always get the benefit of the doubt because of lack of evidence. A incident happened way back in around 2009, it was actually on January 1st. A twenty-two year old young man named Oscar Grant was shot at Fruitvale Station, by an officer that “thought” he was using a taser, but actually used a gun. If that officer would have had a body camera on, he would’ve been more aware of what he was doing, and he would have been caught sooner because they would have been able to see, and tell that Grant wasn’t being defiant.
In the text “A Surveillance Society,”, authors William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Hickey provided information about growing surveillance trends, new types of technology, and the impact of the surveillance. First, many surveillance trends are becoming more popular all throughout the world. Today, there are cameras everywhere you go, whether it is on the streets or in grocery stores, almost all of the time people are being watched. Since the technology of surveillance is more common, a lot of people are being photographed many times during the day. Even if it is not a photograph of your face, the cameras can photograph your license plate and link the car back to you. A main reason these surveillance trends are growing
There is an argument that police officers are getting out of hand with handling arrest. The most recent solution to the problem is having every policeman have a body camera, in order to make the police officer feel as if their every movement is being watched. Recently, there has been discussion if police officers using body cameras is a Liberty Issues and that it gives the police force way too much unchecked power. Some citizens believe that body cameras leads into privacy issues (4th Amendment), violation of civil rights (1st Amendment), and may give too much power to the government (Limited Government via James Madison).
Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.
In the article “That’s No My Phone. That’s My Tracker”, Peter Maass, suggest in a seemingly, unbiased fashion, that unconsciously we are letting ourselves be tracked and investigated by simply using our cell phones, “Every year, private companies spend millions of dollars developing new services that track, store and share the words, movements and even the thoughts of their
Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. By definition, surveillance is any systematic focus on any information in order to influence, manage, entitle, or control those whose information is collected. (Bennet et Al, 6). From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available
“In recent months, a series of news reports have brought public attention to the collection of individual data by government agencies.” In discussions of the advanced use of technology, one controversial issue has been the practice of mass surveillance which is used by the American government. On one hand, individuals argue that there are several advantages of surveillance technology; for instance, these types of systems are believed to limit the number of criminal activity within an area and easily detect suspects. On the other hand, others oppose the surveillance theory because they believe that it is against our constitutional right to privacy. My own view is that the technology that we rely heavily upon today is steadily bringing us closer to the world of Big Brother because the government has the ability to collect information from devices that are constantly being in use such as cell phones, televisions, and computers without our consent.
In the years of government surveillance has improved in many ways such as the technology and advancing the fundamental ideals of individuals rights, they use the technology to avoid many terrorist attack. The government preferably and advancing the fundamental ideals of individual rights, they use technology to avoid a numerous of restrictions on surveillance on common civilians. Between the citizens of this country, there is a rising concern for the issue of privacy due to such a powerful creation, in this case the Utah Date Center, as they feel that they are feeling a severe violation on the rights that they had previously considered impenetrable. In order to stop these concerns, Congress should consider endorsing a law that seeks to join the government’s use of technology to our Constitutional values.
The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).
In an everyday basis people living in America are getting constantly watched so their privacy, is not private. Police is taking this too far, they are violating innocent people privacy. In the article, Winton, 2012. "Long Beach police to use 400 cameras city wise to fight crime." It explains that their police is over exaggerating with their surveillance, watching over innocent person’s and looking over their private information instead of looking over those who are not innocent and have some sort of crime in their record. Not everyone should be watched, especially if their not doing anything that is causing any harm to others. Police should know who to hunt down and spy, and not go hunting everyone else down.
Surveillance is something that I was always aware of, but never really thought much about. I am aware of what is around me for the most part, but during the three-day period in which was to watch for cameras I had come to a realization. There is no such thing as privacy anymore. I am someone who keeps up with what celebrities are doing. I had to watch a documentary regarding Mark Zuckerberg during High School and it shows him being questioned by the paparazzi. The first question that is asked is that if he feels as if he is to blame for the lack of privacy. He of course evaded the question and then states can you please let me have my privacy.
Why do we as American's fear of becoming the victim of a crime? Reality is that we as individuals of the United States only have a two-percent chance of becoming the victim of a violent crime. Surveillance is starting to become high in demand for businesses, offices, and even inside and outside of homes solely because we are taught that crime is always happening to someone, somewhere. From personal experience, I feel as if surveillance cameras are not only one of the best ways to prevent crime, but it also increases the possibility to catch the individual(s) who choose to engage in a deviant act or actions. Although alarm systems can be effective, they do not identify who is committing the crime. The alarm systems simply tell the
Our society would not survive in the 21st century without the help of electronic surveillance. Safety is one of the main purposes of electronic surveillance. Safety is the state of being secure and free from danger of any sort. Today, many would rather give up their privacy for safety (Smithsimon). In fact, surveillance gadgets such as cameras, radio tracking chips and house alarms are used in many places to ensure safety. For instance, a parent can easily place a hidden camera in a stuffed animal in order to see how the babysitter handles his or her child (Public Places Have Eyes). Cameras are also used to ensure safety on school premises. According to the GCC College Safety website, "the college has an extensive system of surveillance