However, in recent times, privacy with regards to the use and installation of CCTV devices has raised eyebrows and stirred up controversies especially many people have cried foul of being spied on anonymously. Other employees have pressed charges on their employers and taken legal actions against them on claims of being spied surveillance devices installed in their desk as this infringes their privacy and does not permit them to work independently. Striking a balance between confidentiality and safety has been an enormous headache to many people because drawing the line between privacy and security has been a daunting errand! In courts, it is a common practice to use CCTV footages as evidence against crime and heinous acts. The legislation in place is quite stringent with regards to using CCTV cameras to spy the public. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 outlines the regulation of public space surveillance cameras in England and Wales. The information commissioner’s office (ICO) is mandated to enforce the Data Protection Act (APA) which details the recording of images using installed CCTV cameras ( ). In this case, an individual has the right to protect his or her property using CCTV cameras. However, when using the CCTV systems, one ought to operate them in a responsible manner and in a means which respect the privacy of others (Surveillance Camera Commissioner, 2015). Whenever one decides to spy on others using CCTV cameras, it is indispensable to let another know of the installation of the CCTV system. It is important to be aware of whether the CCTV camera captures images outside the confines of one’s household since the images will be subject to the Data Protection Act (DPA).
The Data Protection Act (DPA) protects individual privacy, and it outlines the responsibilities of those using CCTV. As long as on can prove that one is not using the camera to analyze the behavior or invade the privacy of another person, one is free to install a CCTV. On the contrary, using CCTV cameras to spy on another person’s property is an offense. Installing the cameras with specific aims of monitoring the behavior of someone else, or to spot potential criminals and tracking individuals, one should register with the information communication.
Installing cameras calls for one to dig deep in the pocket. While dummy cameras are inexpensive, the actual cameras cost much depending on the features and the number of cameras to install. Apart from the installation costs, the maintenance costs are quite expensive especially when they are numerous. The growth of the CCTV has been steadily increased in popularity. As of 2016 statistics, there were approximately 350 million surveillance cameras worldwide. Furthermore, about 65 percent of these cameras are installed in Asia.
Counter-terrorism is focused on situational awareness which involves knowing what is going on so you can figure out what to do. Most terrorist opportunities which match the profile are covered by some form of CCTV surveillance. For CCTV surveillance to be effective in preventing terrorism by picking out a terrorist from a crowd, CCTV cameras ought to be a clear line of sight, correct angles, and height, biometric facial recognition software, high-quality pictures as well as a dedicated population of law enforcement officers to monitor the findings. Many European countries have installed surveillance cameras installed in the majority of the pavements and streets. However, tech-savvy criminals and intruders have a way of tampering with the cameras. They may disable or disconnect the cameras from the power source and escape unnoticed. United Kingdom is the leading country with the highest number of CCTV cameras installed in public spheres.
At present, CCTV is facing increasing law-enforcement regulations. Installation of the systems in traffic, automatic ticketing, high crime areas as well as in the banks has brought about privacy concerns. According to a survey carried out by the Northern University and the University of Cambridge in 2009 titled “Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis” which examined 44 different studies which collectively surveyed areas from the United Kingdom to U.S. cities such as Cincinnati and New York. According to the analysis, surveillance systems were the most effective in parking lots, where their use resulted in a 51 increase in crime.
One question which is a serious concern is the effectiveness of CCTV for policing is around uptime of the system; in 2013 city of Philadelphia Auditor found the $15M system was only operational 32 percent of the time. Public transportation areas saw a 23 decrease in crimes.
Systems in general settings were the least efficient, with just a 7 percent increase in crimes overall. When organized regarding countries, the systems in the United Kingdom were seen to be the majority of the decrease; the drop in other areas was insignificant. There ought to be much more research studies to be conducted to precisely determine the effectiveness of CCTV cameras on crime prevention. Material collected by surveillance cameras has been used since time immemorial as a tool in post-event forensics in identifying tactics, techniques, and perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Post-event, its use lies in evidence gathering and international analysis. Additionally, various projects such as INDECT- which aim at detecting suspicious behaviors of individuals and crowds. Ideally, heinous terrorists are not deterred by cameras. As a matter of fact, many people use surveillance cameras to monitor the public. A good example is the fact that a hidden camera at an ATM can capture peoples’ PINs as they key in the digits. The little devices are unnoticeable. They are placed where they can monitor the keypad of the machine as people enter their PINs. Images are then transmitted wirelessly to the criminal. Critics of popular “Big Brother surveillance” posit that the privacy of the participants is compromised. Proponents of the use CCTV cameras assert that cameras are effective in deterring and solving the crime and that appropriate regulation and legal restrictions on surveillance especially in public domains can render sufficient protections in a way such that the privacy of individuals can be evaluated. In the United States, the constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy although the Supreme Court has proposed several amendments. Access to video surveillance recordings may require a judge’s assent.