Nedanstående innehåll är skapat av Mimers Brunns besökare.
Imagine eyes that observing you wherever you go and ears that catch every slight noise you cause. Inhaling, exhaling, chitchatting, laughing and whispering… Those substances and objects will monitor your every move and document it into its database. If it appears that you are behaving anti-social, the object might even talk to you. There is no way to escape from this frightening scene, which for many sounds like something directly taken from a horror movie. Nonetheless, this is essentially what reality looks like in Britain and several of other countries. What is it I am referring to?
Those eyes and ears are better known as video surveillance; cameras that observe and record your acts in the public. The main reason and purpose with those cameras are preventing crimes to occur. There are a lot of debates going on in countries with surveillance cameras. Britain is the most surveilled industrialized state in the Western world, according to Will Byrne article “Orwell rolls in his grave: Britain’s endemic surveillance cameras talk back” (05/30/2007). The average Briton is captured by electronic eyes more than 300 times on a typical workday. Thus, many claim that the cameras are an infringement on civil liberties and against human rights.
The invasion of privacy is the most common argument against surveillance systems. Various people consider video surveillance in public areas more accepted than in hidden places. As C. Bartell mentions in theCCTVblog.com (Arguments against Video Surveillance, 01/13/2010), mistrust, effectiveness and misuse are as well some of the arguments against the use of surveillance systems. Apart from these inconveniences, it also costs a lot to maintain surveillance cameras in every corner of the areas. Instead of wasting the revenue on cameras, it should be used more prudent e.g. more police officers.
However, there are also a lot of advantages concerning surveillance systems. The cameras could be both a deterrent, and a way for police to restrain criminals. Some people agree that it provides safety and helps give a sense of security in the area. The cameras might be a trustful witness to the police and security teams if an accident or a crime takes place.
Though I am a citizen myself living in a society where surveillance is common, I prefer the second point of view. I have been working with a lot of cameras during my time as a journalist and I know that every single detail it documents will be worth the effort in the end. I believe that cameras do assist against crimes. If you walk down the street and suddenly someone steal your purse and you did not have the time to see who it was, wouldn’t it be great if you know that the cameras will capture a glimpse of the offender’s face? But then I again, ...
...läs fortsättningen genom att logga in dig.
För att komma åt denna sida måste du
vara medlem och inloggad.
Är du inte redan medlem?
Bli medlem nu!
Om du loggar in får du tillgång till
Har du en favoritförfattare på Mimers? Då kan du läsa allt om honom eller henne här. Du kan se bild, personlig information, statistik, listor och mycket mer!
Läs vad andra har skrivit i din favoritförfattares gästbok. Du kan även starta en debatt, kommentera , rösta på de arbetet som ligger uppe samt skriva inlägg i forumet.
Se hela arbeten
Är du intresserad av något speciellt som du vet att en medlem på Mimersbrunn skrivit ett arbete om? Du får även tillgång till andras arbeten, sätta betyg samt att kommentera.
Article: "Orwell rolls in his grave: Britain’s endemic surveillance cameras talk back” (p. 05/30/2007) by Will Byrne
theCCTVblog.com: "Arguments against Video Surveillance" (p. 01/13/2010) by C. Bartell