Public Surveillance

“Welcome! Surveillance cameras and music are for your enjoyment,” is a sign posted near Sacramento. People of the town have been embracing the surveillance system for over 20 years saying that it helps protect the residential privacy and property against intrusion. According to the article by Marcus Nieto, “Public Surveillance: Is It An Effective Crime Prevention Tool?” over the years, many countries, including the United States, have begun to use Closed Circuit Television surveillance (CCTV) to help with public safety. These CCTV systems can passively record and play back certain intervals, others can be actively monitored, or a combination of both methods could be used.

In 1968, Congress passed the first electronic surveillance law. The purpose was to define the proper use of electronic surveillance and to balance the privacy interests of individuals and the law enforcement needs of the state. Then in 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy act which allowed law enforcement to use new technology like video surveillance. Many people believe that this might be an invasion of privacy, but it is an effective method. One example where it proved successful was the case of the New York Trade Center bombing where the man was caught because of evidence they obtained through surveillance.

Scott Sher, author of “Continuous Video Surveillance and its Legal Consequences” says,

In the opinion of most legal scholars, the continuous video surveillance of public areas does not present significant legal obstacles. Although no court has directly addressed this issue, under current interpretations of the First and Fourth Amendment and California tort law, video surveillance appears to represent a valid use of the state’s power to protect its citizens. In this view, continuous video surveillance is analogous to a mechanical police officer. It does not intrude upon an individual’s sphere of privacy, but rather records events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have reasonable expectations of privacy.

According to the 1967 ruling of the Supreme Court case Katz vs. United States,

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police.

Or in the case on Knotts vs. United States in 1983, the Supreme Court stated, “A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.” When we enter into public spheres, we automatically wave our right to privacy of our actions. This is because we cannot be expected to go somewhere without being seen by someone or something which is known as the “Plain View Rule” or “Open Field Doctrine.” Many people believe that simply leaving their house should not warrant any action they perform to review and questioning.

Pros and Cons of Tracking

Pros

If the government was able to track you using your phones and other devices, we would have the ability to know what people are planning and stop them beforehand if it is something that can cause harm to others.

We would be able to find anyone at any time, if lost or kidnapped

Catch criminals; home invasions, murder, rape, gang violence

Cons

Invasion of privacy

Unlawful/ wrongfully arrested (in the past, thousands of people have been wrongfully arrested because of surveillance after important points in history such as wars)