Table of ContentsIntroductionHistory of Surveillance CamerasCrime Reduction and Benefits of Surveillance Cameras for Police Departments in Different RegionsPhiladelphiaMarylandIllinoisWashington D.CAImproving Rights Surveillance and Privacy for the FutureReferencesIntroductionThe use of surveillance technology in the United States has changed dramatically since 9/11. The rise of this technology, along with other important features of social media, has made police closer than ever to the community they patrol. However, some might think that surveillance technology can make the police a little too close. With social media and cameras at everyone's fingertips, it can be difficult to solve the problem of protecting individuals' privacy rights. Whether within a police department or a court of law, there have been many disputes over the extent to which the government can intrude into people's private lives. The most important court case that upheld the right to privacy and set a precedent for all current court cases is Katz v. United States in 1967. This Supreme Court case stated that the Fourth Amendment provides privacy protection to a person who reasonably believes they have an expectation of privacy and they were not in a public place (Brassil, 2009). This court case is the backbone of the controversy surrounding today's right to privacy in the new technological world. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay This article will discuss the history and disadvantages of surveillance cameras due to people believing that surveillance cameras can infringe on their Fourth Amendment rights. Next, other reviews will discuss the benefits of surveillance cameras, despite privacy concerns, and how they have reduced the level of crime in cities across the country. It will then examine how the role of this technology has changed, how surveillance systems can be improved, and what new technologies can help police reduce crime while ensuring citizens have their privacy rights. History of surveillance cameras Surveillance cameras have been implemented within police departments. in the United States since the 1970s. The violent civil rights riots of the 1960s encouraged surveillance cameras after society began to realize that police needed to be held accountable for their actions. Over the next two decades, new training programs and reforms were implemented to change the way policing was done. But everything came to an abrupt halt during the terrible events of September 11, 2001. The terrorist acts carried out by Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda created a "war on terrorism", the consequences of which are still felt today. The changes of 9/11 even led President George W. Bush to create a new department within the government known as the Department of Homeland Security. This department has transformed surveillance practices in the United States to this day (Bloss, 2007). Instead of protecting the privacy of American citizens, America was now waging a war and putting all its focus on information gathering and intelligence. America's security was of the utmost importance; therefore, the right toprivacy was considered a trivial matter. Soon, almost everything could be searched to protect citizens with the passage of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was a controversial law that allowed police greater access to conduct investigations and invade citizens' privacy in order to uncover the truth. Surveillance cameras were just one of many tools available to federal agents, along with phone calls, emails and other sources of information sharing that could easily be exploited without agents disclosing anything. 'they did (Bloss, 2007). Invasion of privacy created a level of distrust of the government and many law-abiding citizens believed the government was overstepping their boundaries. In fact, the Patriot Act still creates tension among citizens today since it never seems to be eliminated as policy. It was set to expire in 2005 and was extended until 2019, when there will no longer be an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. The government damaged its credibility among citizens with the adoption of the Patriot Act; However, updated surveillance camera policies and repeal of the Patriot Act could restore people's confidence that surveillance cameras are used for the right reasons. Crime Reduction and Benefits of Surveillance Cameras for Police Departments in Different Regions Philadelphia Despite the privacy concerns that have been created in the early 21st century, there can still be many benefits to using surveillance cameras. In fact, it may be essential to examine the benefits of surveillance cameras to help citizens feel safe and show that they are needed for the right reasons. The use of surveillance cameras around a city or town is very important as they have been proven to effectively reduce crime in an area. A crucial pilot study in Philadelphia sought to determine whether surveillance cameras could reduce crime. This study based its hypothesis on rational choice theory and believed that cameras installed in certain locations would reduce crime if the person being watched knew that they were being watched and that the risk of being arrested by the police would be too high for them to she wants to do it. commit the crime. After studying the impact of installing certain cameras in certain locations across the city, it was found that there was no significant difference in about half of the twelve locations. However, across four sites there was a significant reduction in crime, particularly serious crime, and overall, a 13 per cent reduction in total crime across all areas (Ratcliffe et al., 2009). What seemed to make this study crucial was the fact that it found that the choice of where to implement the camera was more important than the type of camera placed. The best results showed that, although conducted together, camera placement and other crime reduction techniques employed by police had the most deterrent effect. Additionally, cameras placed in an area with improved lighting have been found to further reduce crime. Pilot studies like this are important to dispel any doubt about what works with surveillance cameras and reinforce what future surveillance camera studies should examine (Ratcliffe et al., 2009).MarylandAnother study on surveillance cameras surveillance cameras conducted in the state of Maryland also showed an improvement in reduction ofcrime after the installation of cameras. Mayor O'Malley implemented public surveillance cameras in Baltimore in 2005 due to the extreme prevalence of crime in the area. In fact, in 2003, Baltimore was ranked the seventh most dangerous city in the United States due to violent crime. Over the years, Baltimore officials continued to update their technology and ensured that the cameras were visible and well advertised to the public. Soon, Baltimore began acquiring so many cameras that the police department had to hire staff for an entire surveillance department that would operate 24 hours a day. The recommended and preferred type of personnel for this position were officers retired police officers who knew the area and this proved beneficial in creating new jobs in the city and giving hope to citizens. Data collected as part of the Baltimore surveillance camera project was collected from 2003 to 2008. The study results show that in all districts studied, particularly in inner city Baltimore, crime was significantly reduced a few months after the cameras were installed. Even though the initial costs of implementing the cameras and annual maintenance costs to maintain the cameras were high, Baltimore officials decided that the benefits far outweighed the costs; However, their only regret was not having waited until later until the technology was a little more advanced. Indeed, Baltimore had difficulty using footage in court due to grainy images or poor lighting. Unlike Philadelphia, it seemed more important to have advanced cameras than a good location to make their implementation worthwhile. Fortunately, surveillance cameras have become more cost-effective and advanced over the years, with higher HD quality, due to the introduction of PTZ cameras. PTZ cameras can zoom in and out over long distances and rotate 360 ​​degrees. Therefore, it may have been more cost effective for Baltimore City to purchase more PTZ cameras so that multiple areas could be viewed with a single camera. Illinois Another study on how surveillance cameras reduced crime comes from Terry Hilliard, who was the superintendent of the Chicago Police Department. Terry implemented a new program in 2003 called "Operation Disruption." This operation allocated thirty new portable cameras that could be controlled by police officers in their patrol cars, allowing for rapid response to the already extremely violent crimes underway in the city of Chicago. After the implementation of these thirty cameras became a success, Terry and many other key city departments launched a large number of cameras throughout the city from 2003 to 2007. Chicago now has more than 8,000 cameras resulting from this process, which helped keep crime under control. Overall, Chicago found that installing cameras was a better choice for the city and that the total crime reduction benefits increased by almost three dollars for every dollar spent on cameras. Results of data collected on crime rates from 2003 to 2007 showed significant reductions in crime rates in the months following the implementation of the cameras. However, there is one area where no significant reduction in crime rates has been seen. That's because the area didn't have as many cameras per square mile as other areas surveyed. This result showed that the deterrent effects can be reducedwhen people feel they can commit crimes more easily because they don't think they have been seen. Therefore, Chicago agrees with Philadelphia in that the choice of location may be better than the choice of camera quality. This was due to the city not placing as many cameras in this area which did not reduce its crime level. However, they also noted that one should be careful before purchasing the latest and greatest technology. It's important to evaluate whether it's worth it and what the technology is capable of, especially because technology evolves so quickly in just a few years. Washington D. After the events of 9/11, Washington DC became another hub that moved forward with the idea of ​​surveillance technology. Charles Ramsey, then-chief of the Washington, D.C. Police Department, declared a "criminal emergency" in 2006, going beyond what other cities had accomplished. In fact, the entire process of planning to install the cameras only took thirty-eight days. By 2007, Washington DC had installed more than seventy-three PTZ cameras, equipped with bulletproof housings and very well advertised to the community. After careful data collection, most of the seven districts studied in Washington DC experienced a reduction in crime after implementation, with a 10% decrease in crime since 2006; however, there was a peak during the summer months of 2007 and 2008, where crime increased for the first two months and returned to pre-implementation levels of the cameras. This worried officials in Washington, DC, and they began to evaluate what might have happened with crime rates. The reason for this problem is being assessed and is believed to be due to limited resources and the speed of camera installations. There may not have been enough staff to meet active surveillance requirements. This could then have led to a decrease in the cameras' ability to deter crime. Indeed, active surveillance makes it possible to detect a crime while it is occurring. If people look at the footage after the fact, it may be more granular and not have great zoom capabilities, which may make it unusable in court. Even though Washington, D.C., had the least reduction in crime with cameras, they learned a valuable lesson: it's important not to rush a process of implementing city-wide cameras. the city and making sure everything is taken into account before jumping straight into the process. This study recommended that cities and towns benefit from knowing all the facts and considering citizen opinions before fully implementing cameras. Overall, all cities could agree that a high-quality camera is worth the wait before making the choice to implement cameras. within a city. However, cities like Philadelphia and Chicago believe that installing cameras in hot spots was even more important for each city individually. Every city and town works in different ways, and one way to reduce crime in one area may not work in another area. Improving Surveillance and Privacy Rights for the Future Surveillance cameras have become an essential tool in many large cities and towns. Staying involved in the community and researching future technologies are of the utmost importance to reduce crime and improve citizens' privacy rights. For example, further research could be conducted on a system.:10.1177/1362480616659814