The use of technological surveillance is one that affects all in a society. The types of technology that can and will be used must be determined. If this power is put into the hands of one person or one governing body, citizens are vulnerable to having their rights to privacy violated. Citizens may be concerned that they are constantly being watched, even in situations where they are not committing crimes. If the power of surveillance gets in the wrong hands, there is a possibility that the information may be used in crimes. This leads to square one, surveillance to prevent crime has actually caused it.
Another very controversial issue is the right to privacy of citizens in their own homes. As citizens of Canada, we have the right to privacy and reserve the right that our privacy will be not be intruded upon. However, as citizens, we also do not have the right to commit crimes within our homes. By committing crimes, we are giving up every right as a citizen.
However, corrupted law enforcers also cause ethical issues to rise. Policing agencies can easily use technological devices for reasons other than to prevent crime or catch a criminal. There is no one to police the police. Therefore, officers can physically intrude on one’s privacy for any reason they please. Citizens may also abuse this right through the police by creating false accusations about another citizen, which may lead to a person to be watched.
Privacy has become a very important issue, especially when we consider that nearly every transaction we make in the public world today ends up in a computer somewhere, for a period of time. This information is open to anyone who has access whether it is a borrowed library book, telephone bill, or a credit card purchase. However, how much is the society really sacrificing to allow law enforcers to effectively do their job? And how much are these laws helping criminals get away with crime?
For example, neighbours of a suspicious new neighbour complain to the local police in Toronto of the possibility of growing marijuana in the home. The neighbours have practised surveillance in the simplest form possible by just observing the frequent but quick visits by the residents. However, when the police get involved, the observation becomes complicated and technology is used. With only the suspicion and word from neighbours, it is difficult to acquire a search warrant, so the police start their own more advanced form of surveillance.
The police agents, from prior knowledge and experience, know that there would be bright lights inside the house, used that create heat. The agents use thermal imaging scanner to detect any form of heat inside the house. The agents conducted a scan of the house while parked outside and in just a few minutes the imager indicated that the roof over the garage was unusually hotter than those of the neighbours and other rooms inside the house.
The evidence of the heat, the tips from neighbours, and utility bills for the house allowed the agents to obtain a search warrant. The information that the police obtained could not have been found unless they physically intruded on the rights of the owner and the privacy of his home. Although this case exclusively dealt with thermal image scanning, the surveillance influenced by technology helped the police find enough evidence to obtain a search warrant.
In this case, the court ruled against the agents because they conducted surveillance that was physically intrusive. The home owner expected privacy since he was in his home, therefore it is logical that the agents need a warrant even to conduct the thermal scan. The tips from the neighbours was not enough to use the thermal imager.
From the home owner’s side, he had the right to privacy since he was in his own home. Because the agents used a thermal imager to perform a search of the house, the home owner should have the right to see a search warrant. The homeowner was left at the mercy of advancing technology and therefore his right to privacy was violated. However, he did not have the right to grow marijuana in his home and therefore committed a crime and gave up his rights as a citizen.
From the agents’ point of view, they believed that the homeowner was performing illegal activities in his home and believed they did not need a search warrant to conduct the thermal scan because the technology did not penetrate the walls or roof of the house.
Technology is not only helping the “good guys” but also the “bad guys.” The Pector, which sells for $150, is a device that detects surveillance cameras. It has a very long range, and easily picks up on the difference between actual cameras and “false” ones such as television sets. The Pector indicates the presence of surveillance cameras by vibrating. Furthermore, it fits inside the shirt pocket or the back pocket and is very discreet.
Although privacy is a right in our society, we need to realize that there are people who abuse this right. In the case of the marijuana, it is our personal opinion that it was reasonable for policing agencies to use surveillance. While the line is thin in cases where a good reason is needed to obtain a search warrant, policing agencies should be forced to obtain the warrant. Surveillance is a very important police tactic that helps to prevent crime and catch criminals. Without surveillance, there would be a lot more crime of larger magnitude. The only way that surveillance will be ethical is if policing agencies are policed. By making sure that these agencies follow strict codes, it will reduce the amount of unethical uses of surveillance technology. Although this would be the most ethical way to handle the issue, it is impossible to stop all uses of unethical surveillance. The continuous advancements in surveillance technology will continue to make it more difficult to regulate the use of surveillance, regardless of how much social control is implemented.
Bibliography
Fasoldt, Al. A test of the latest surveillance- camera detector, tongue in cheek. 1986. The Syracuse Newspapers.
<>
Wakefield, Jane. Surveillance cameras to predict behaviour. 2002. BBC News Online technology. <>
Mann, Steve. Privacy Issues of Wearable Cameras versus Surveillance Cameras. 1995. Newsweek.
<>