IndexIntroductionHistory of surveillance camerasCrime reduction and benefits of surveillance cameras for police departments in different areasPhiladelphiaMarylandIllinoisWashington D.CMimproving surveillance and privacy rights for the futureReferencesIntroductionThe use of surveillance technology in the United States has changed dramatically in the post-9/11 era. The rise of this technology, along with other important social media features, has brought police closer than ever to the community they patrol. However, some may think that surveillance technology may make the police a little too close. With social media and cameras at everyone's fingertips, it can be difficult to navigate the issue of protecting people's privacy rights. Whether it's a police department or a court of law, there has been much controversy over how much the government can intrude into people's privacy. 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 held that the Fourth Amendment provides privacy protection to a person who reasonably believes they have an expectation of privacy and were not in a public setting (Brassil, 2009). This court case is the backbone of the controversy surrounding current privacy rights in the new world of technology. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This article will touch on the history and disadvantages of surveillance cameras due to people who believe that surveillance cameras can intrude on their Fourth Amendment rights. Next, further evaluations will discuss the benefits of surveillance cameras, despite privacy concerns, and how they have reduced the level of crime in cities across the nation. It will then delve into how the role of this technology has changed, how surveillance systems can be improved and new technologies that can help the police reduce crime and at the same time guarantee citizens the right to privacy. 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 spurred surveillance cameras after society began to realize that police needed to be held accountable for their actions. Over the next two decades, new sets of training programs and reforms were adopted to change the way policing was done. However, everything came to an abrupt end when the terrible events of September 11, 2001 occurred. The terrorist acts led by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda created a "war on terror", the consequences of which are still being 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 public citizens in the United States, America was now fighting a war and focusing all attention on intelligence gathering and intelligence. America's security was of the utmost importance; therefore, privacy rights were considered a trivial matter. Soon, due to the passage of the Patriot Act, it isIt was possible to search almost everything to protect citizens. The Patriot Act was a controversial act that allowed the police to have more access to conduct investigations and invade citizens' privacy to get to the truth. Surveillance cameras were just one of many tools available to federal agents, along with phone calls, emails, and other information-sharing sources that could easily be tapped into without agents ever revealing they were doing so (Bloss, 2007). invasion of privacy created a certain level of distrust in the government, and many law-abiding citizens believed that the government was overstepping its bounds. In fact, the Patriot Act still creates tension among citizens today as it never seems to be eliminated as a policy. It was due to expire in 2005 and has now been extended until 2019, when there will no longer be an imminent threat from Al Qaeda. The government compromised its credibility among citizens by passing the Patriot Act; However, updated policies on surveillance cameras and the repeal of the Patriot Act could restore people's confidence that surveillance cameras are being used for the right reasons. Crime Reduction and Benefits of Surveillance Cameras for Police Departments in different areasPhiladelphiaDespite the privacy concerns that have been created in the early twenty-first century, there can still be multiple benefits to using surveillance cameras. In fact, examining the benefits of surveillance cameras can be critical to helping citizens feel safe and demonstrating that they are needed for the right reasons. Using surveillance cameras around a city is very important as they have been proven to effectively reduce crime in an area. A crucial pilot study conducted in Philadelphia sought to find answers about whether surveillance cameras could reduce crime. This study based its hypothesis on rational choice theory and believed that cameras in certain locations would reduce crime if the person being observed knew they were being monitored and that the risk of being caught by the police would be too high for them to want to do so. commit the crime. After studying the impact of implementing certain cameras in certain locations in the city, it was found that there were no significant differences in approximately half of the twelve locations. However, in four sites there was a significant reduction in crime, particularly serious crime, and overall there was a 13% reduction in total crime across all areas (Ratcliffe et al., 2009). What seemed to make this study crucial was that it found the choice of where to install the camera was more important than the type of camera placed. The best results showed that, when performed jointly, camera location and other crime reduction techniques employed by the police had the most deterrent effect. Additionally, cameras in an area with better lighting have been found to further reduce crime. Pilot studies like this are important to dispel any doubts about what works with surveillance cameras and reinforce what future surveillance camera studies will need to consider (Ratcliffe et al., 2009).MarylandAnother surveillance camera study also conducted in the state of Maryland showed improvements in crime reductions post-implementation of cameras. Mayor O'Malley in 2005 implemented public surveillance cameras in Baltimore due to the extreme prevalence of crime thathits the area. In fact, in 2003 Baltimore was ranked the seventh most dangerous city in the United States due to violent crime. As the years passed, Baltimore officials continued to update their technology and ensure the cameras were visible and well advertised to the public. Soon, Baltimore began to have so many cameras that the police department had to staff an entire surveillance department that would work around the clock. The recommended and preferred type of personnel for the job were retired police officers who knew the area and was useful for creating new jobs in the city and giving hope to citizens. Data collected from the surveillance camera project in Baltimore was collected from 2003 to 2008. The results of the study show that, in all districts studied, particularly in the downtown Baltimore area, crime was significantly reduced by a few months after the camera was implemented. Although the initial costs of implementing the cameras are annual, the maintenance costs of caring for the cameras were high, and Baltimore officials decided that the benefits far outweighed the costs. however, their only regret was that they didn't wait until the technology was a little more advanced. That's because Baltimore has faced challenges using the footage in court due to grainy footage or poor lighting. In contrast to Philadelphia, it seemed more important to have advanced cameras rather than good location setup to make it worth the effort. Fortunately, surveillance cameras have become cheaper and more advanced over the years with higher HD quality, thanks to the introduction of PTZ cameras. PTZ cameras can zoom in and out within long distances and can rotate 360 ​​degrees. Therefore, it may have been more cost-effective for the city of Baltimore to purchase multiple PTZ cameras so that more than one area could be viewed with a single camera. Illinois Another study on how surveillance cameras have reduced crime comes from Terry Hilliard, who was the superintendent of the Chicago Police Department. Terry implemented a new program in 2003 known as “Operation Disruption”. This operation provided thirty new portable cameras that could be monitored by police officers in their patrol cars, allowing for rapid responses to the already extremely violent crimes taking place in the city of Chicago. After the implementation of these thirty cameras became a success, Terry and several other key city departments rolled out a large number of cameras throughout the city from 2003 to 2007. Today, Chicago has over 8,000 cameras as a result of this process which has maintained crime under control. Overall, Chicago found that implementing cameras was a better choice for the city and increased total crime reduction benefits by nearly three dollars for every dollar spent on cameras. Results from 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 was one area where no significant reduction in crime rates was found. That's because there weren't as many cameras positioned in the area, per square mile, compared to other areas studied. This result showed that deterrent effects can be reduced when people feel they can more easily get away with committing crimes because they don't think they are being seen. Therefore, Chicago isagree with Philadelphia in the sense that the choice of location might be better than the choice of camera quality. This is due to an area not having reduced crime levels because the city did not place as many cameras in that area. However, they also noted that you should be cautious before purchasing all the latest and greatest technology. It's important to evaluate whether it's worth it and what the technology is capable of, especially since technology changes so rapidly in just a few years. Washington DC After the events of September 11, Washington DC has become another central hub that has progressed with the idea of ​​surveillance technology. Charles Ramsey, then-chief of the Washington DC Police Department, declared a “crime emergency” in 2006 that went far beyond what other cities had achieved. In fact, the entire process of planning the camera installation took just thirty-eight days. By 2007, Washington DC had installed over seventy-three PTZ cameras, with bulletproof casings and very well advertised to the community. After careful data collection, most of the seven districts studied within Washington DC have experienced post-implementation crime reductions, with crime decreasing by 10% since 2006; however, a spike occurred in the summer months of 2007 and 2008, when crime increased in the first two months and returned to pre-implementation levels of the cameras. This worried officials in Washington DC who began an assessment of what might have gone wrong with crime rates. The reason for this issue has been evaluated and is believed to be due to limited resources and the speed of camera installations. There may not have been enough staff to keep up with active monitoring needs. This may therefore have led to a decrease in the cameras' ability to deter crime. This is because active monitoring allows you to see a crime while it is happening. If people watch the footage after the fact, it may be more granular and not have great zoom capabilities, which can make it unusable in court. Even though Washington DC has reduced crime less with the implementation of cameras, they have learned a valuable lesson: it is important not to rush a city-wide camera implementation process and make sure everything is taken into account before starting the process directly . This study recommends that cities and towns benefit from learning all the facts and taking citizens' opinions into consideration before fully implementing cameras. Overall, all cities agree that it is worth waiting for a high-quality camera before choosing to deploy cameras. within a city. However, cities like Philadelphia and Chicago felt that placing cameras in hot spots was even more important for the city individually. Every city and town works in different ways, and one way you see a reduction in crime in one area may not work for 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' right to privacy. For example, further research could be done on a recently invented technological system known to reduce crime called ShotSpotter. This new technology can interconnect surveillance cameras with itself and beyond:10.1177/1362480616659814