"We should have security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals"
I agree with this to a certain extent, in and that it would definitely cut down on crimes, particularly shoplifting and pickpocketing. I agree with this because almost all public places already have them, such as stores, bus stations, and shopping malls. The only place we don't have them is in our homes, and in parks. I don't think that having them in parks is a terrible idea, but i strongly disagree with having them in our homes. No one needs to know what goes on inside some else's house, not even the government. Right to privacy is in our constitution, and no one should be able to take that away from us. If we're in public, then nothing we do necessitates the right to privacy, because anyone could see us doing it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I agree with this statement 100 percent. Since we have cameras in most public places i feel like we are already monitored quite a bit. But having camera in our homes are totally unacceptable and unreasonble. It is in our rights to have privacy and our homes are a prime example of what should be left alone. This is a good post.
Rachel Lee-per 5
i agree with Aidan because there are more and more security cameras seem to be popping up everywhere. I feel that we are already being watched constantly, but it isn't as intense as it was in 1984. Winston was bing constantly watched no mater what he was doing to where he was (except when he was in the dark). When the cameras being to start migrating into our homes, then it would begin to be a problem.
We don't find cameras in public places offensive or repressive because we have grown up around them and they are just a fact of life. Perhaps there are more of them today than there were ten years ago, but the number of them is growing at a slow and nearly indetectable pace. This allows them to be incorporated into our culture as normal. Both of the previous comments to Aidan's post have said this. Along a similar train of thought, Winston never thought twice about the existence of telescreens: he considered their presence and altered his actions accordingly, but he accepted the fact that they were everywhere and that they could not be turned off. Winston accepted that he could not escape from the telescreens in his home just as we accept that we cannot escape from the security cameras in grocery stores, banks and malls: we know they're there and it's just a fact of life.
Part of the reason that Aidan (and most other Americans) are opposed to having cameras in private places is that the concept is foreign to us. Aidan discusses the fact that we have willingly foregone our privacy when we're in public places, even though the right to privacy is in the Bill of Rights. This does not bother us because we grew up with it. We accept it. We did not grow up with telescreens (representative of constant surveillance and an unspoken contract to relinquish privacy)as the younger generation in 1984 did; therefore, we find the concept foreign, offensive, and morally wrong where they do not.
Annika
I agree with Aidan, but I am intrigued by Annika's point that security cameras in public may only seem acceptable to us because we don't know any other way. I agree with Aidan in that having security cameras in public would not be an invasion of privacy, simply because anything you do in public is not private at all. But I wonder how we would feel if, up until now, there had been no cameras in public places and the idea was introduced. Would we act the same way as we would if the government proposed cameras in our homes? It's hard to know.
Oh whoops that one is from Hannah.
I also agree with Aidan, that this statement can only be implemented a certain extent.
I do believe that security cameras decrease the amount of petty crime that goes on in public places, and I think they should remain where they are. However, security cameras in our homes would only put more stress in our lives, knowing that someone had the potential to be watching and monitoring everything we do in our private lives. There's a reason the right to privacy is on the Bill of Rights.
In response to Hannah: Because we aren't accustomed to security cameras in our homes, I wonder what would occur in an experiment where security cameras were placed in our homes. What if security cameras had always been in our homes? Would this would change our perception of security cameras today? I agree that it's hard to know.
I'd like to extend on Annika's theme for a moment. Cameras are largely acceptable to us because we have grown up around them, and our generation is one obsessed with documenting itself.
So let's say, in 30 years or so, cameras dominate the public domain. Parks, street corners, residential districts, all are monitored. Homes are still free from cameras, but who can live like this? You step out of your home and are on record from morning until evening. Every purchase you make, every person you meet with, all has been recorded. And you will not know where the tape is, you will not know who has seen you, you will not know who is watching your life like it is their own entertaining movie. Finally, who watches the watcher? The ability to see anyone at anytime is enormous power, and would undoubtedly be abused at some point in the system.
The fact that our privacy is already being invaded is not an appropriate reason to accept more cameras, and more intrusions into our lives.
-Sam Dunnington
Everyone makes good points. I really agree with what Sam is saying, though. Once you start saying what if we put more and more cameras in and what if we took it to the extreme, then you start having problems with the system because the point of putting cameras around in the first place was to reduce crime, and once you give someone the power to watch everyone and anyone, you give them too much power and it starts to become a society like Oceania which the general population would be opposed to. I do think that if we had grown up with cameras all around us, we would not question it and it would be accepted it, but because we did not grow up like that, we are accustomed to a certain level of privacy, and if you install cameras in more and more places, they we will feel that our privacy is being violated and we will not be happy with it. In response to will it catch potential criminals–the word potential kind of throws me off. What I understand from this question is that should we put up cameras up to catch people who maybe possibly could be a criminal? It seems silly to try to determine who has more potential to be a criminal than another person.
I agree with what Aidan said. It's a touchy subject, talking about privacy, and I completely respect everyone's right to have their privacy. But, in stores, malls, and parks etc. it is entirely acceptable to have cameras.
-Georgia
I agree with Aidan. Having cameras in most public places is good because it ensures our safety. But having them in places that our private, like our homes, is invading our privacy. No one likes to be watched all the time and everywhere. In 1984people were watched like that. No one had any privacy, even in their own homes. Having them in places like is just unnecessary.
-Jessica K
Post a Comment