Public Surveillance: Final Draft
Public Surveillance should be restricted due to the invasion of privacy. We’ve all been pulled over by an officer and have paid the agitating usually over 100 dollar ticket for speeding or another violation, but it was only a few weeks ago when cameras practically blinded me as I barely ran a red light. A few days later, a picture of me and the amount needed to be paid was sent to my parents, and one can imagine their happiness seeing that ticket. Public Surveillance is an invasion of privacy, threatening to transform society to that of the fictional dystopias depicted in stories. Marcus Nieto of the California Research Bureau states that the “United Kingdom streets now resemble Orwell's 1984, and that the public should be howling against these "electronic stasi" proliferating like poison ivy across the buildings and streets” (Nieto). Certain surveillance agencies were developed around the 1960’s, creating the National Security Agency and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Granick). Both agencies use public surveillance to monitor society, track foreigners, and disclose information to companies at a price (Granick).
Many tools are used in disguise to view the public. Cars parked along highways now have cameras, radar, and the ability to take pictures just like the new stoplights. Chief of Police Edward Merdano of California noted that the cameras were to increase safety, but safety was not increased, and intersections remained with the same number of accidents with or without the use of surveillance (Granick). Besides camera surveillance, there are many other forms of surveillance such as phone monitoring and even installing computer chips in I.D cards.
According to the ACLU of Northern California, computer chips known as RFID’s have been installed in i.d cards since the 9/11 attacks and has jeopardized personal security, privacy, and financial security (ACLU). Until I researched more on...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document