This let them anticipate movements and counterattack appropriately. Since that time, technology has advanced at a swift pace and we are now at a stage where satellites can pinpoint and take pictures of objects the size of cars from space.
Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you. By Ginny Sloan In the wake of the Boston marathon bombing, Boston Police Commissioner Davis has called for more surveillance cameras, and press accounts report new calls for cameras from Richmond, Virginia to San Francisco.
Mayor Emmanuel has said Chicago will keep adding cameras, and Mayor Bloomberg is warning New York City residents that more cameras are coming, scoffing at complaints that this will be "Big Brother," and telling New Yorkers to "Get used to it!
True, it was video surveillance footage from a department store camera that provided the first important clues leading to the suspects in the marathon bombing. Additional video footage from members of the public also helped police identify and apprehend the suspects. The law enforcement officials who sought and examined the video footage, and the businesses and individuals who provided their videos in response, all deserve our praise and gratitude.
But we must be careful in identifying lessons from this use of video evidence. Most importantly, we should recognize that video cameras did not, and cannot, prevent an attack like the Boston marathon bombing.
Nor did the ubiquitous cameras in London, the most-surveilled city on the planet, prevent the devastating bombing attacks in that city in This is not to discredit the important role that surveillance footage has played in identifying suspects after the fact in these cases and others.
Yet increasing the number of cameras in cities like Boston, or Chicago -- which already has over ten-thousand cameras -- would not convert the cameras into a terrorism-prevention tool. Nor is there any indication that Boston investigators were hampered by having too little video footage to examine.
Furthermore, we must ensure that when government officials do rely on surveillance cameras, the systems incorporate robust privacy safeguards.
These include commonsense measures to ensure that cameras focus on detecting wrongdoing and to limit intrusions on private conduct. For example, cameras should not be used to track a specific person unless officers have sufficient legal reason to suspect the person of wrongdoing.
People routinely engage in activities in public places that are completely legal, but that they nonetheless consider private. Individuals use public spaces to enter Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and meetings of controversial political groups.
To respect constitutional rights, the government cannot indiscriminately and constantly monitor people, even in public places. As five Justices of the Supreme Court recognized last year in a case involving GPS location tracking, long term monitoring by electronic surveillance "impinges on expectations of privacy.
Video surveillance systems should also be covered by clear rules requiring that government agents use surveillance footage only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. This includes footage from government cameras, and private videos turned over to police.
Thus, once Boston investigators have examined all the video footage they have received, they should retain only the video evidence identified as relevant to the investigation, and should delete the rest.
Surveillance footage that simply shows marathon runners, spectators, and other members of the public engaged in normal lawful behavior should not end up in a law enforcement file. In rushing to protect ourselves from the next attack, we should not turn to unregulated government use of surveillance cameras.
While we applaud Boston officials for their outstanding investigation, we must remember that video cameras are not an anti-crime or anti-terrorism panacea. The Boston experience demonstrates that video evidence can be important in identifying suspects and building a case.
But it does not teach us that Boston -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- needs more surveillance cameras.Public Video Surveillance Essay. Public Video Surveillance INTRODUCTION Today’s technology has changed the way we live.
It has changed the way that we view the environment, act when out in public, and the way we go about doing our daily task. In there were no more than ten cities with open street systems in operation; these. Catching criminals is one the best benefits of surveillance cameras in public places.
The bombing at Boston Marathon is a good example. It only took the FBI three days to release blurry shots of the two suspects, taken by a surveillance camera installed in a department store. Home» Video Surveillance» [Solution Brief] Safer Cities through Smarter IT Infrastructure × Share this Presentation [Solution Brief] Safer Cities .
Free surveillance papers, essays, and research papers. Video Surveillance for Safer Cities - Urban surveillance has been on the rise in the past 20 years, and the balance of privacy and security is quickly changing.
Essay on surveillance and privacy; Surveillance is defined as the close monitoring of the actions of a specific individual. The surveillance technology systems are devices that identify monitors and track the movements and data.
The technologies will ensure that individuals are safe, secure and convenient. The government has a. The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life.
Fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more.