Society is fast paced through the advent of media and technology. As technology evolves, the more it continuously affects the people’s lives. Subsequently, through wit and knowledge, man has yet released another innovation that is, subject to debate, law enforcement cameras. Certainly, with the growing number of violence and threats to persons, property and security, and with technology on our side, governments were able to install security measures to curb these dangers and threats. However, many question its credibility to sustain its purpose and its future acceptance without invading man’s privacy. Hence, with this study, it seeks to present various points on the hope of making a stance on the efficiency of law enforcement cameras in fulfilling its purpose as well as resolving the issue on the people’s right to privacy.
Though man has the equitable share of securing his life, the government plays the primary role. Through law enforcement agencies complimented by laws and regulations, the government is able to control its people, prohibiting the commission of unlawful acts. Given the responsibility of the state, it is safe to assume that the state fully supports the law enforcement cameras.
So, central in this study is the installation of the law enforcement cameras as a way to preserve order and security. However, there arises a hindrance for its fulfillment; vital is men’s right to privacy. Indeed, the use of law enforcement cameras have greatly helped in maintaining order in some of the communities, but many are bothered that the use of which may over step the rights of the people to privacy.
Surveillance measures are used not only for fighting crimes, but also for saving innocent lives from bars. Likewise, the same (law enforcement cameras) have been efficient in implementing rules such as traffic regulations, and securing one’s homes, or ensuring safety while in school and even in an ordinary street. However, traditionally, society cannot escape the inevitable exploitation and the abusive use of surveillance cameras, allowing a criminal to outwit the law enforcement cameras. Hence, their emerging popularity, and with the advancement of technology, it seems that these law enforcement cameras may not sufficiently lessen the commission of crimes, consequently, its installation may not be worth it of bending a man’s right to privacy for the greater interest.
With the inevitable increase of the commission of crimes, man opts to abuse the use of the law enforcement cameras, violating man’s privacy rights. Psychologically, it worries children, implying in them at a young age the danger outside their homes. Further, men may manipulate the recorded footages from the surveillance cameras, committing more crimes.
Privacy is one of the civil rights of an individual and coincides to his right to freedom. Violation to privacy may greatly affect an individual’s reputation or his right to be left alone. However, jurisprudence has settled the question whether such public interest outweighs man’s privacy right. Therefore, there seems to be a weak threshold on privacy, seemingly incapable of guaranteeing people’s basic human rights given that technology is advancing so fast.
Indeed, law enforcement cameras have helped lessen the commission of crimes as this measure obviously threatens future criminals from making unlawful acts, however, its continuous use may cause further destruction, if not regulated properly. True, the use of law enforcement cameras are not all bad, but its unregulated use may threaten the public being subject to scrutiny, violating their rights and committing more crimes, for which purpose the law enforcement cameras have been intended. Hence, despite the danger of the continuous use law enforcement cameras and until further studies have been done, it seems that this surveillance measure may stay for some time.