CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are security cameras a violation of our privacy?
Security cameras are found almost everywhere you go in public. They monitor for any suspicious/criminal behaviour. In your opinion, are security cameras a violation of our privacy?
Security cameras are a monitoring device that record our activities, and thus our privacy is empirically reduced. The real question is whether that violation is justified. I would argue not; eventually we do reach a point of diminishing returns in the tradeoff between liberty and safety.
Security cameras placed in public areas are not infringing on anyone's right to privacy. In public places there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If a merchant puts a hidden camera in a changing room to prevent theft, clearly a reasonable right to privacy has been violated.
The answer to the posted question is dependent on the camera's location and purpose.
Security cameras placed in public areas are not infringing on anyone's right to privacy. In public places there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
That is entirely a matter of opinion. Privacy can reference an expectation of non-observation and non-documentation even in public or semi-public spaces, and even in private locations. The question is whether that privacy is entitled to protection under the definition of that concept as a right. You assert that it is unreasonable to expect it, but I challenge you to justify that claim. Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that that sort of observation and documentation actually makes us significantly safer? There are real threats to allowing total monitoring of a population by its government, so when we endorse expanding that governmental power we should be certain that we are doing so for legitimate reasons. I have seen no evidence that suggests this tradeoff is actually worth it.
If a merchant puts a hidden camera in a changing room to prevent theft, clearly a reasonable right to privacy has been violated.
I agree, and by the same rationale presented above. The payoff for permitting that type of monitoring is not worth the costs it incurs or risks it poses.
The answer to the posted question is dependent on the camera's location and purpose.
I agree entirely, and nothing in my post stated otherwise.
Sure, that would be one rather specific example of what I was talking about; but I was speaking more generally. Even simply walking down the street silently would fall under the purview of my statement.
Not at all. I am saying that even when in public a person may maintain certain expectations with respect to others' monitoring of their actions and behavior.
The question is whether that privacy is entitled to protection under the definition of that concept as a right. You assert that it is unreasonable to expect it, but I challenge you to justify that claim.
Just wanted to point out: there is no reason to assume someone has a right to privacy in a public place over someones right to film in a public place. The burden of prove isn't just on him.
In most Western conceptions of rights I believe (though perhaps am mistaken) that the burden typically falls to those attempting to restrict the right in question, rather than the other way around. Within this context my proving the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy in public and semi-public spaces strikes me as being rather akin to one being expected to disprove the existence of God. My stance on reasonableness is premised upon the argument that the gains from infringement are so minimal as to discredit the validity of a pro-restriction stance; it strikes me as an unreasonable burden to expect me to go through every possible benefit of restriction when an initial argument presenting those benefits in an empirical fashion has not been made.
Security cameras are an extreme violation of our privacy. Now someone is always watching me. I'm not a child and I understand laws. I realize some people don't. But why don't we work on preventing crime instead handling it after it happens. There is so much more we should be doing. This has happened in all societies in the past. The government gets much too large and wants to control the lives of the people. This is what has always happened in the past and this is what drives nations down. We are slowly losing more and more freedoms. Security cameras are just another way to control us. And that is all they're doing. I have nothing to hide. My problem is not that I want to commit crimes. My problem is that they are violating my basic rights a freedoms as a citizen of the United States.
What do we have to hide? Are we criminals who are trying to hide from security cameras? If you have something to hide, of course you will oppose security cameras
I believe that security cameras are there to protect you and to keep you safe, not to 'spy' on you. CCTV recording can be extremely useful in capturing criminal activity on camera. It is a legitimate means of evidence in court.
Well, I personally have nothing to hide since I am not a criminal. Not saying that you are, of course. Also speaking from personal experience, I have not ran into any problems with security cameras in all my life.
Would you say that security cameras are useful in PREVENTING crime?
Well, I personally have nothing to hide since I am not a criminal. Not saying that you are, of course. Also speaking from personal experience, I have not ran into any problems with security cameras in all my life.
When a government becomes abusive of its authority it is not only criminals whose activity is monitored. There is no reason for the government to know the details of our comings and goings, yet it is entirely within their capacity through public monitoring programs such as this to do just that. This poses an assumption of guilt before innocence, which is a dangerous assumption to permit of any government.
Would you say that security cameras are useful in PREVENTING crime?
No, not especially. Security cameras may be useful in responding to crime from time to time, but generally speaking I should think that those committing crimes do so regardless of the cameras - they just cover their identifying features until they're clear of a surveyed area. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I have never seen any actual evidence even suggesting otherwise.
I'm pretty ardently outspoken about illegal surveillance, and I like being on video record as little as the next person. But I think in this instance security cameras are one of those necessary evils. Also, when people are informed prior to any encounter that they are being recorded, they then have the choice of whether or not to enter themselves into that place of business. It is when people are being recorded without their consent, and without knowledge of cameras being present, that said surveillance impedes on our privacy wrongly.
Out of curiosity, would you consider it problematic if someone is made aware of the presence of live cameras but cannot practically avoid going to where those cameras are locate? For instance, receiving a summons to court for jury duty and the building has live cameras. Or with the extensive setup in the UK (esp. London) where one knows about the extensive live camera system but cannot effectively avoid them and expect to get anywhere they need to go. Etc.
Good question. In this instance, no, I don't see it as problematic, because again, the patrons/visitors have been made aware of the cameras on the premises and so they are aware they inevitably will be on film. If they wanted to make sure the cameras did not become intrusive into their private affairs, they should wait to discuss and/or conduct them outside the parameter.
Correct me if I am misrepresenting your views, but the conclusion that seems to follow from your statement is that you think knowledge is the only important element to privacy and that consent is not especially relevant. If one is summoned to court for jury duty you cannot decline; you must go and submit to being recorded even if you are aware of that recording and do not wish to be recorded. What follows from the conclusion that this is not a violation of privacy is that the government could put cameras in our homes, and as long as we were aware of it our privacy would not have been violated.
You are misrepresenting my views. In public places, there is no element of privacy. If you're going to court for jury duty, then you're aware there are cameras, but you haven't a choice really but to comply. That's anywhere you go in public. It's not okay, but there it is.
I can wager with almost 100% certainty that no one in their right mind would concede to have government-implanted cameras in their homes or on their property. And I never insinuated such a ludicrous notion. Maybe I should have stressed the private vs. public angle more, but I assumed (incorrectly, apparently) that readers would be able to discern the difference.
When I said, "It is when people are being recorded without their consent, and without knowledge of cameras being present, that said surveillance impedes on our privacy wrongly," I was still talking in terms of public interaction.
The misrepresentation was owing to a misunderstanding, which I suspected might exist (hence, my qualification asking that you let me know if that was the case). I am well aware that you were not explicitly insinuating that people would concede to have cameras in their homes, but that was where my understanding of your statements took me when followed to their logical conclusion. I still wonder what is so intrinsic to public space that we forfeit all expectation of privacy (particularly when not entering such spaces willingly).
I would challenge the notion that in public places there is no element of privacy, particularly as you even concede that "it's not okay". Further, there is legal precedent and scholarship indicating that the line between public and private expectations of personal privacy is not so bright. For instance, body cams on law enforcement have raised privacy issues as they can record other parties without their consent both in public and in private. By what line of reasoning, exactly, to we forfeit our privacy by occupying public spaces (particularly when we are compelled against our express desire)?
I am curious to what your thoughts might be regarding semi-public places.
