Are Cameras an Invasion of Privacy? (Essay Sample)

Student's Name
Professor's Name
Course Name
Date
Are Cameras an Invasion of Privacy?
The right to privacy is a fundamental right that all people love to enjoy and at the same time exploit. True freedom is a myth, and essentially, no democracy can exist without laws and legislation to govern its people. For this reason, governments use every means available to them to ensure the safety of their population. It is the mandate of the ruling class to ensure that its citizens are protected from terrorism, criminal activities and that they feel safe in the confines of their own country. That is why surveillance cameras are placed in public areas to enforce this notion.
Surprisingly enough, some people feel that this action is an infringement on their privacy (Gomez-Cardona et al.). These beliefs are baseless. Hence, cameras placed in public areas are meant to prevent criminal activities, terrorist acts, protect the general population and not invade people's personal space and privacy.
In the wake of the September 2011 terrorist attack, surveillance and security cameras received a huge boost. They became a common purchase in the western world especially, the United States of America. The people and the government realized that they needed to do more to keep the citizens safe from future attacks (Gomez-Cardona et al.). Additionally, anxiety and fear fuelled the need for these cameras in public places. The public realized that the government is not always capable of protecting its people, and at times, the law needs some tools to be enforced effectively. Civil-rights lobbyists may argue that cameras, facial recognition software present in parks, schools, and other public areas invade privacy and undermine democracy but these tools aid law enforcement in keeping the public safe and in check. One can only imagine what could happen if people were allowed to run around and conduct their businesses illegally or otherwise without a system of checks and balances. This may lead to the creation of a state of anarchy in any country.
The use of cameras in public areas came in handy during the bombing during the Boston Marathon in April 2013. The perpetrators were apprehended only because they were taken by the bystanders present and sifting through the city's cameras. As much as some may be against the whole idea of cameras in public, there is a vital need to be present. It is not the prerogative of the government to harass its citizens. Instead, it only aims to safeguard their best interests. The use of cameras in public places has helped citizens become more self-conscious about what they do in the open (Global).
It is important to understand that the government does understand the need for privacy because surveillance cameras or any other cameras are allowed in restrooms and other places that warrants privacy. For instance, in Singapore, their street cameras have helped reduce littering and smoking in restricted places. Furthermore, cases of theft and suspicious activity have been reduced by 21%. It is safe to assume that cameras have improved the quality of life in the country.
The civil-rights activists point out the privacy and security concerns of using cameras in public areas. They argue that there are no clear regulations or legislation on who gets to use the cameras or behind the camera. Is it the government? Corporates? Nosy neighbors? Or security companies. Is there a distinction between the use of cameras in the public and private sectors? With the increased ownership of cellular phones, who is regulating the "peeping toms?" These questions raise many concerns and may cause anxiety among the general public (Global). However, law enforcement agencies are drafting guidelines and punishments for people caught misusing these cameras. The creation of these regulatory mechanisms will eradicate the existing policy vacuum.