Danielle Wright -- Final Exam

A Con Approach to Public Surveillance Technology

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2006/06/big-brother-in-restroom.html

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/crb97-005.pdf

     One controversial area that relates to Michel Foucault’s vision of the global gaze is the technology and use of public surveillance cameras. By utilizing surveillance cameras, governments are able to keep track of the public’s activities and are thereby able to control and discipline them when necessary. Many businesses and governments are employing these resources with the intention of reducing crime and/or to catch criminals in an illegal act by recording their actions and behavior. From the panopticism point of view in that individuals can always be observed by the guard tower yet don’t always know they’re being watched, the consideration of public surveillance cameras being a violation of one’s Fourth (and First) Amendment rights must be reviewed. Most individuals know that they are being watched when shopping or walking in a public place. It is one thing for a business to place cameras in their place of business and in parking lots with the intention of deterring crime or for a city government to place multiple cameras at an intersection to monitor public traffic; however, are one’s rights in violation if a camera is placed in a position (such as an alleyway) where the actions of an individual in the privacy of their home or backyard is suddenly called into question?

     In a landmark Supreme Court decision, Katz v. United States 389 U.S. (1967), the modern definition of the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure” law was defined. The court declared that “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.” The Court further defined that in United States v. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-282 (1983), “a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When that 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.” It is this reasoning that police are able to record individuals on public roads. The gist of it all is that when an individual is in a public place, they have the expectation that they are being watched and/or recorded. Public surveillance cameras placed in a position where an individual’s private world is being recorded, despite the reason why, is a clear violation of one’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

     In the postmodern world, the placement of surveillance cameras has to be questioned. Just because the technology exists does not mean that the institutions in power should execute it in any manner that they deem necessary. The privacy rights of individuals must be protected and guidelines must be incorporated, reviewed, and protected. In theory, cameras have the ability to deter crime, increase public safety, and provide evidence in criminal matters; however, invasion of privacy and the possibility of the image misuse are also viable issues and unfortunately, there are not studies to measure how effective utilizing public surveillance cameras are in the deterrence of crime.