Invasion of Privacy? - Public Video Security System Reviews

Should we consider public video security systems an invasion of privacy? Some people think so. Safety is of course a concern, and for that reason, video systems and video security cameras can be a deterrent to crimes. This can make people feel safe, but it can also lead to an outcry that such measures are an invasion of individual privacy. Is this true, or false?

The answer is "both," because it really matters how those very video security systems are used, why video security cameras are posted, and whether or not those being monitored are aware of the monitoring.

When video security cameras are generally not considered an invasion of privacy

· To prevent public crime

For the public, video security systems do just that, provide security. Someone is much less likely to perform a mugging, for example, on a street corner with a video camera is clearly posted specifically to prevent such crimes.

· To prevent retail theft

In addition, stores and other businesses use video cameras to prevent stealing or theft, and to prevent other crimes from occurring. When people know they're being monitored, they're much less likely to perform criminal behaviors. In addition, those systems provide valuable evidence should criminal prosecution be necessary. It's been shown that they are indeed a crime deterrent, and most citizens are aware that public security systems are necessary in many cases both to protect customers' physical safety, and to protect businesses from theft and other losses that then get passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs.

When public video security systems may become a problem

· Is the camera in question in plain view?

One would think that video security systems used in public are never an invasion of privacy. However, some argue that video security cameras that are secreted and hidden from view, such that they can't be detected, could be construed as an invasion of privacy. Because they are subversive and those recorded by the cameras are not aware that they are being recorded, they may argue that this is an invasion of their privacy since they don't know the recording is happening.

When cameras are in plain public view, those being recorded know that those cameras are there and can act accordingly. When recorded with hidden cameras, however, this may indeed be an invasion of privacy since camera use is not advertised or clearly shown. Since crime deterrence usually happens because would-be criminals know the cameras are there, hidden surveillance cameras also do not deter crime, although they may provide evidence of a particular crime happening after the fact.

· Images can be misused

Although certainly, surveillance camera images have been released on the news to catch criminals who have robbed businesses or banks so that they can be caught, the information gathered through the surveillance is easily misused so that suddenly, private citizens' personal information is at risk. When private companies are hired to monitor and review surveillance tape, images can be captured and misused at their discretion, thus leading to embarrassment and risk for completely innocent individuals.

These risks and drawbacks must be weighed against the benefits for each situation in order to determine whether video surveillance is really necessary.