# data[].attributes.body
-Freedom of movement is infringed
-Have to stay 12 hours of your day at home
-Machine installed in your home to make sure you stay in range
-Very long and hard process to get one

# data[].attributes.body
As less prisoners will be in jail, it lowers the possibility of "gangs" forming in jails. The trackers can also be used to track these gangs, once they form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails.

Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

But, instead of being contained in bracelets worn around the ankle, the tiny chips would be surgically inserted under the skin of offenders in the community, to help enforce home curfews. The radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, as long as two grains of rice, are able to carry scanable personal information about individuals, including their identities, address and offending record.

The tags, labelled "spychips" by privacy campaigners, are already used around the world to keep track of dogs, cats, cattle and airport luggage, but there is no record of the technology being used to monitor offenders in the community. The chips are also being considered as a method of helping to keep order within prisons.

A senior Ministry of Justice official last night confirmed that the department hoped to go even further, by extending the geographical range of the internal chips through a link-up with satellite-tracking similar to the system used to trace stolen vehicles. "All the options are on the table, and this is one we would like to pursue," the source added.

The move is in line with a proposal from Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), that electronic chips should be surgically implanted into convicted paedophiles and sex offenders in order to track them more easily. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is seen as the favoured method of monitoring such offenders to prevent them going near "forbidden" zones such as primary schools.

"We have wanted to take advantage of this technology for several years, because it seems a sensible solution to the problems we are facing in this area," a senior minister said last night. "We have looked at it and gone back to it and worried about the practicalities and the ethics, but when you look at the challenges facing the criminal justice system, it's time has come."

The Government has been forced to review sentencing policy amid serious overcrowding in the nation's jails, after the prison population soared from 60,000 in 1997 to 80,000 today. The crisis meant the number of prisoners held in police cells rose 13-fold last year, with police stations housing offenders more than 60,000 times in 2007, up from 4,617 the previous year. The UK has the highest prison population per capita in western Europe, and the Government is planning for an extra 20,000 places at a cost of £3.8bn - including three gigantic new "superjails" - in the next six years.

More than 17,000 individuals, including criminals and suspects released on bail, are subject to electronic monitoring at any one time, under curfews requiring them to stay at home up to 12 hours a day. But official figures reveal that almost 2,000 offenders a year escape monitoring by tampering with ankle tags or tearing them off. Curfew breaches rose from 11,435 in 2005 to 43,843 in 2006 - up 283 per cent. The monitoring system, which relies on mobile-phone technology, can fail if the network crashes.

A multimillion-pound pilot of satellite monitoring of offenders was shelved last year after a report revealed many criminals simply ditched the ankle tag and separate portable tracking unit issued to them. The "prison without bars" project also failed to track offenders when they were in the shadow of tall buildings.

The Independent on Sunday has now established that ministers have been assessing the merits of cutting-edge technology that would make it virtually impossible for individuals to remove their electronic tags.

The tags, injected into the back of the arm with a hypodermic needle, consist of a toughened glass capsule holding a computer chip, a copper antenna and a "capacitor" that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

But details of the dramatic option for tightening controls over Britain's criminals provoked an angry response from probation officers and civil-rights groups. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "If the Home Office doesn't understand why implanting a chip in someone is worse than an ankle bracelet, they don't need a human-rights lawyer; they need a common-sense bypass.

"Degrading offenders in this way will do nothing for their rehabilitation and nothing for our safety, as some will inevitably find a way round this new technology."

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said the proposal would not make his members' lives easier and would degrade their clients. He added: "I have heard about this suggestion, but we feel the system works well enough as it is. Knowing where offenders like paedophiles are does not mean you know what they are doing.

"This is the sort of daft idea that comes up from the department every now and then, but tagging people in the same way we tag our pets cannot be the way ahead. Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me."

The US market leader VeriChip Corp, whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 RFID microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans. The company claims its VeriChips are used in more than 5,000 installations, crossing healthcare, security, government and industrial markets, but they have also been used to verify VIP membership in nightclubs, automatically gaining the carrier entry - and deducting the price of their drinks from a pre-paid account.

The possible value of the technology to the UK's justice system was first highlighted 18 months ago, when Acpo's Mr Jones suggested the chips could be implanted into sex offenders. The implants would be tracked by satellite, enabling authorities to set up "zones", including schools, playgrounds and former victims' homes, from which individuals would be barred.

"If we are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people?" Mr Jones said. "You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are willing to be controlled."

The case for: 'We track cars, so why not people?'

The Government is struggling to keep track of thousands of offenders in the community and is troubled by an overcrowded prison system close to bursting. Internal tagging offers a solution that could impose curfews more effectively than at present, and extend the system by keeping sex offenders out of "forbidden areas". "If we are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people?" said Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

Officials argue that the internal tags enable the authorities to enforce thousands of court orders by ensuring offenders remain within their own walls during curfew hours - and allow the immediate verification of ID details when challenged.

The internal tags also have a use in maintaining order within prisons. In the United States, they are used to track the movement of gang members within jails.

Offenders themselves would prefer a tag they can forget about, instead of the bulky kit carried around on the ankle.

The case against: 'The rest of us could be next'

Professionals in the criminal justice system maintain that the present system is 95 per cent effective. Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is unproven. The technology is actually more invasive, and carries more information about the host. The devices have been dubbed "spychips" by critics who warn that they would transmit data about the movements of other people without their knowledge.

Consumer privacy expert Liz McIntyre said a colleague had already proved he could "clone" a chip. "He can bump into a chipped person and siphon the chip's unique signal in a matter of seconds," she said.

One company plans deeper implants that could vibrate, electroshock the implantee, broadcast a message, or serve as a microphone to transmit conversations. "Some folks might foolishly discount all of these downsides and futuristic nightmares since the tagging is proposed for criminals like rapists and murderers," Ms McIntyre said. "The rest of us could be next."

To have your say on this or any other issue visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails. Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

# data[].attributes.body
Loss of Privacy
Could be hacked and used for unintended purposes
Could be used to spy on people (drones, youtube)

# data[].attributes.body
Invasion of privacy

# data[].attributes.body
Unsuitable activities while wearing a tag include water sports, surfing and diving, as well as contact sports such as rugby and football, according to the document.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those who are tagged will be required to charge the device for a total of around two hours on a daily basis.

"The cost of charging the GPS tag is approximately 3p per day and the subject can claim this back through the monitoring centre if they wish to," the paper said.

Unsuitable activities while wearing a tag include water sports, surfing and diving, as well as contact sports such as rugby and football, according to the document.

It said GPS monitoring can provide information which helps authorities establish whether the individual is complying with conditions or requirements relating to their whereabouts. Examples include zones that a subject is not permitted to enter or leave, as well as people who they are not allowed to associate with.

Officials have budgeted for 1,500 tags across both pilot areas, although this figure may not be reached and a "gradual build-up" is expected.

The pilot will run for a year covering Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Leicester, the West Midlands, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New tagging technology sees 1,500 offenders tracked by satellite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those who are tagged will be required to charge the device for a total of around two hours on a daily basis. "The cost of charging the GPS tag is approximately 3p per day and the subject can claim this back through the monitoring centre if they wish to," the paper said.

# data[].attributes.body
-Reduces your prison time in prison by 50% (if it's your first time)
Allows "mild" offenders (stealing,...) to get out of jail early.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Release and eligibility for electronic tagging and temporary leave | First Time in Prison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you can expect to be released from UK Prison and eligibility for either electronic tagging (or home detention curfew) and release on temporary license.

# data[].attributes.body
Allows for greater security
Could be used as effective evidence in court cases
Allows fewer people to have monitor other

# data[].attributes.body
The government of the nation a criminal is from, could potentially use this data to track them down, to punish them within their own nation.

# data[].attributes.body
Does not isolate the prisoner from society, and thus can help facilitate rehabilitation of the prisoner and reduce the amount of re-offenders.

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/gps-tags-to-help-reduce-reoffending-in-the-capital

# data[].attributes.body
The gps tracking can fail and it might gives false alarms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GPS tracking technology lets officers monitor convicts without actually keeping them incarcerated. Providing housing, security, food, health care, plus administrative costs etc. to prisoners is an expensive financial burden for most states in the US. Due to the high costs, some states are using a GPS system to track nonviolent prisoners as an alternative to keeping them locked up.

This type of GPS tracking allows authorities to monitor the criminals at all times without the responsibility of keeping them incarcerated. While the GPS tracking system make it easier for states to track offenders, the use of such systems does have its downsides.

As jail overcrowding continues to be an issue in many counties, many use GPS enabled ankle bracelet monitors to keep tabs on inmates. The simple reason is to save money, but it doesn't come without some concern for public safety. According to recent news report, using a GPS tracking system could save the county up to $25 a day per inmate, which adds up to about $9,500 a year per inmate.

Many GPS experts believe assigning a nonviolent criminal a GPS tracking device after release from jail or prison may prevent him from engaging in future crimes. They say a criminal will know he is being watched and monitored, and will likely realize that committing an illegal act will ultimately result in another arrest.

GPS tracking devices are often used after the release of sex offenders. Some states require offenders to wear a tracking device for life, regardless of whether he has served his whole prison term. When a criminal is assigned a GPS tracking device, corrections officials place a permanent bracelet placed on his ankle. This makes it possible to track the person 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For instance, if a registered sex offender comes closer to a school than he is allowed, the monitor notifies authorities. Authorities are also notified if someone tries to remove the tracking bracelet.

But what happens when these GPS tracking systems fail? According to Gordon Hinkle, a spokesman with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California monitors about 6,500 sex offenders using a GPS tracking system. Each month, about 50 sex offenders statewide who should be monitored by parole agents are on the lam, he said. For example, according to Corrections Reporter, the GPS tracking system used by the Colorado state Corrections Department to track released sex offenders failed a few months ago. BI Inc.told the Corrections Department that its nationwide GPS tracking system for 16,000 offenders was down due to a system malfunction. Yikes!
http://www.correctionsreporter.com/2010/10/18/wi-sex-offender-gps-tracking-system-fails/http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_0a52de54-1a2a-5bad-a172-8e187b0e682e.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GPS Tracking System Used to Release and Monitor Inmates - Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GPS tracking technology lets officers monitor convicts without actually keeping them incarcerated. Providing housing, security, food, health care, plus administrative costs etc. to prisoners is an expensive financial burden for most states in the US. Due to the high costs, some states are using a GPS system to track nonviolent prisoners as an alternative to keeping them locked up.

# data[].attributes.body
Ankle bands impacted the children of the ankle band owners. When the ankle beeped, the children got worried that their parent would get put to jail. The kids started to do massive bails whenever it beeped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tagging

# data[].attributes.body
Reduces cost of sentences as infrastructure for housing and security of prisoners is no longer required.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The future came crashing down on me this week at the Google I/O developer conference while I stood at a bathroom urinal.

I had just wrapped up a conversation with a man who owned a pair of Google's Internet-connected glasses, Google Glass. He had explained that one of the gadget's greatest features is the ability to snap a photo with a wink. "It's amazing, you just look at something, wink your eye and it just takes a picture," he said enthusiastically.

I should preface here by saying that that I'm a nerd. I've been a nerd all my life, always buying the first era of a new gadget - essentially anything with a button and a battery. But this week, the moment I swung open the doors to the Moscone Center in San Francisco, home of the developer conference, I felt like a mere mortal among an entirely different class of super-connected humans.

Everywhere I looked at the conference, people were wearing Google Glass. Hundreds of them. Maybe more than a thousand! They were on the escalator. At the coffee stations. Press lounges. Lingering in the hallways like gangs of super nerds. They looked like real people as they nibbled on M&M's and nuts at the snack bars. Except they weren't; these "humans" were able to take pictures with their eyes and then post them to the Internet.

The developers present who didn't own the company's augmented reality glasses stared at those who did with awe. But not me. I tried to duck my head and move out of the way of these strangers' sneaky little cameras.

Often, Google Glass owners looked strange. Many were using their cellphones while wearing the glasses - defeating a declared purpose of the new gadget, to free you from having to look at your phone. Another man continually looked at his watch to check the time, even through the glasses display a clock right above your eye.

At one point as I climbed the stairs and approached the second floor, I saw a group of five people wearing Google Glass, all silently staring off into space. I couldn't tell if they were wirelessly having a conversation through their eyeballs, or just bored by the presence of real humans in front of them.

Then I met the man who excitedly told me about his power to snap pictures with his eyelid. (The wink, it should be noted, is not officially supported by Glass, but is essentially a hack "sideloaded" onto the device.) He explained that he uses the wink-to-take-a-picture feature so much that a few days ago he was not wearing his Google Glass and was confused when he blinked his eye and nothing happened. His mind had played a trick on him, he said.

I laughed nervously as he told me the story, his Google Glass propped atop his nose, unsure if he was winking or blinking at me, taking pictures or just clearing dirt from his eyes. I then excused myself to go to the toilet.

As I approached the line to the restroom, I took a deep sigh, thinking that I might find some respite from the hundreds of cameras strapped to people's heads at the conference.

Yet when it was finally my turn to approach the rows of white urinals, my world came screeching to a halt. There they were, a handful of people wearing Google Glass, now standing next to me at their own urinals, peering their head from side to side, blinking or winking, as they relieved themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The future came crashing down on me this week at the Google I/O developer conference while I stood at a bathroom urinal. I had just wrapped up a conversation with a man who owned a pair of Google's Internet-connected glasses, Google Glass.

# data[].attributes.body
It would save the government a lot of money in the long run, as the costs of running prisons would decrease.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GPS tracking technology lets officers monitor convicts without actually keeping them incarcerated. Providing housing, security, food, health care, plus administrative costs etc. to prisoners is an expensive financial burden for most states in the US. Due to the high costs, some states are using a GPS system to track nonviolent prisoners as an alternative to keeping them locked up.

This type of GPS tracking allows authorities to monitor the criminals at all times without the responsibility of keeping them incarcerated. While the GPS tracking system make it easier for states to track offenders, the use of such systems does have its downsides.

As jail overcrowding continues to be an issue in many counties, many use GPS enabled ankle bracelet monitors to keep tabs on inmates. The simple reason is to save money, but it doesn't come without some concern for public safety. According to recent news report, using a GPS tracking system could save the county up to $25 a day per inmate, which adds up to about $9,500 a year per inmate.

Many GPS experts believe assigning a nonviolent criminal a GPS tracking device after release from jail or prison may prevent him from engaging in future crimes. They say a criminal will know he is being watched and monitored, and will likely realize that committing an illegal act will ultimately result in another arrest.

GPS tracking devices are often used after the release of sex offenders. Some states require offenders to wear a tracking device for life, regardless of whether he has served his whole prison term. When a criminal is assigned a GPS tracking device, corrections officials place a permanent bracelet placed on his ankle. This makes it possible to track the person 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For instance, if a registered sex offender comes closer to a school than he is allowed, the monitor notifies authorities. Authorities are also notified if someone tries to remove the tracking bracelet.

But what happens when these GPS tracking systems fail? According to Gordon Hinkle, a spokesman with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California monitors about 6,500 sex offenders using a GPS tracking system. Each month, about 50 sex offenders statewide who should be monitored by parole agents are on the lam, he said. For example, according to Corrections Reporter, the GPS tracking system used by the Colorado state Corrections Department to track released sex offenders failed a few months ago. BI Inc.told the Corrections Department that its nationwide GPS tracking system for 16,000 offenders was down due to a system malfunction. Yikes!
http://www.correctionsreporter.com/2010/10/18/wi-sex-offender-gps-tracking-system-fails/http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_0a52de54-1a2a-5bad-a172-8e187b0e682e.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GPS Tracking System Used to Release and Monitor Inmates - Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GPS tracking technology lets officers monitor convicts without actually keeping them incarcerated. Providing housing, security, food, health care, plus administrative costs etc. to prisoners is an expensive financial burden for most states in the US. Due to the high costs, some states are using a GPS system to track nonviolent prisoners as an alternative to keeping them locked up.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the biggest and the most obvious benefit of installing security cameras. Once they are placed, you will be able to see their effect on people almost immediately. Even if they are placed discreetly, you will start feeling a sense of security, which is priceless.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Technology is a double-edged sword. While innovation and upgrades can have several benefits for us, they can also be used to cause trouble.

The majority of us reap its advantages, but a few with vested interests continue to abuse it and make the lives for the rest of us miserable.

The security camera is one of the wonders of modern technology, which is used at homes as well as in offices. It has gained immense popularity as an effective security measure, thanks to the plethora of benefits it offers.

But just like other inventions, security cameras have a few drawbacks as well.

The advantages, however, outnumber the disadvantages, and this revolutionary equipment continues to be popular with those serious about keeping their loved ones and assets safe and secure.

If you're thinking of installing security cameras at your home or office, but are still in two minds, this post should help clear your confusion.

Advantages

1. Deter Crime

This is the biggest and the most obvious benefit of installing security cameras. Once they are placed, you will be able to see their effect on people almost immediately. Even if they are placed discreetly, you will start feeling a sense of security, which is priceless.

Whether you install the cameras in your home or at the workplace, you can prevent crime from occurring. The mere sight of the camera staring back at them, and the sheer thought of getting caught red-handed are intimidating enough for mischief-makers to be on their best behavior as they would know that their identity and illegal activity have been captured.

2. Monitor Scenarios and Activities

It is extremely easy to work with security camera systems as they can be placed anywhere as long as there is a power source close by. They come in all shapes and sizes; some are tiny enough to be hidden in plants, pictures, photo frames, etc. Depending on your needs you can buy either hidden cameras or mountable ones.

Never let anyone or anything suspicious out of your sight with security cameras. And while it is recommended that you avoid buying dummy cameras, one cannot stress enough on the importance of fixing real cameras as a solid security measure. Criminals are smart and dummy cameras give themselves away, so there's really no point in having them.

3. Gather Evidence

Having cameras installed in strategic places comes in handy when you need to monitor actions and words of people or during an event. Modern security cameras are not only equipped with high-quality video capabilities, but audio as well. The clear images coupled with flawless sound makes them more efficient than ever at recording a series of happenings.

4. Arrive at the Right Decisions

Footage from security cameras can help you make correct and fair decisions when settling disputes, both in domestic as well as professional scenarios. Whether it is dealing with a situation involving disagreements within your family, among your employees, or between a customer and your service staff, your doubts can be laid to rest with the help of your camera.

5. Maintain Records

So you got to know of something that happened outside your home or office about a fortnight ago and curiosity is getting the better of you? You can douse it by simply looking up your security records. Cameras record and document everything they see systematically, i.e. as per the date and the time of the event.

Disadvantages

1. Privacy Is an Issue

There have been a few instances in the past where security cameras have stirred up controversies, especially in professional setups. There have been cases where employees have objected to being under constant surveillance without their permission and citing the 'invasion of privacy' as the reason. A few have also resorted to taking legal action against their employers in relation to this.

2. It Can be a Costly Affair

3. They Can be Vulnerable

When we, as users of security cameras, try to keep ourselves updated on the latest in security systems, we should not forget that intruders and criminals are doing the same too. A clever trespasser will probably know all about them and may have figured out a way to go undetected.

Further, tech-savvy criminals might have understood the technology and worked out ways to disable/disconnect them from their power source. Plus, if he detects your cameras as fake/dummies, they can be utterly useless in any crime prevention.

In worst cases, hackers can play havoc with your security camera system by using the Internet and use them to spy on you instead.

4. Can't Stop Theft

Cameras enable users to record footage for later viewing, and to help nab criminals, and receive justice from the law. They cannot, however, stop a crime when it is in progress. They do not alert neighbors or the police like an alarm system would. This means that you will incur losses even as you run to the court, make insurance claims and reorder stolen inventory, which may no longer make you feel absolutely safe and even cause you to lose faith in them.

Conclusion

Before making the important decision of installing security camera systems, it is better to be equipped with complete knowledge about them, as that will enable you to make an informed decision and help you choose a camera that fulfills your needs and expectations. Once you've weighed the pros and cons of setting up this technological marvel, you will feel better about your choice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Security Cameras

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technology is a double-edged sword. While innovation and upgrades can have several benefits for us, they can also be used to cause trouble. The majority of us reap its advantages, but a few with vested interests continue to abuse it and make the lives for the rest of us miserable.

# data[].attributes.body
It allows for more, and more substantial evidence to be collected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
CS201 Final Project by Tony Wu Justin Chung James Yamat Jessica Richman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ethics (or not) of Massive Government Surveillance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Surveillance is, simply put, the observation and/or monitoring of a person. Coming from the French word for “looking upon,” the term encompasses not only visual observation but also the scrutiny of all behavior, speech, and actions. Prominent examples of surveillance include surveillance cameras,…

# data[].attributes.body
There have been a few instances in the past where security cameras have stirred up controversies, especially in professional setups. There have been cases where employees have objected to being under constant surveillance without their permission and citing the ‘invasion of privacy’ as the reason. A few have also resorted to taking legal action against their employers in relation to this.
https://www.a1securitycameras.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-using-security-cameras/

# data[].attributes.body
Cost efficient

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
IFSEC Global | Security and Fire News and Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many European countries now employ public video surveillance as a primary tool to monitor population movements and to prevent terrorism.

Councils, law enforcement and security management professionals in the UK rely heavily on video surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism. According to some researchers, the camera surveillance systems in the UK discourage criminals and thus preventing crime.

Download the 2016 Video Surveillance Report Get the latest report on CCTV and video surveillance in 2016 by downloading this free report

The UK is recognised as a leading user of CCTV and the public are used to seeing CCTV cameras on virtually every high street. Such systems continue to enjoy general public support but they do involve intrusion into the lives of ordinary people as they go about their day to day business and can raise wider privacy concerns.

The potential value of public surveillance technology took on new meaning last April, 2013 when investigators identified the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing after sifting through video images captured by the city's cameras.

The Boston bombers were apprehended quickly due to surveillance cameras. Yes! All agree! No dispute over how well the public cameras were on that day. Yet, many lingering questions need to be answered now, since we have time and opportunity to gather our wits and thoughts!
The related policies - who regulates and implements?
Who draws the line at what is public interest and just plain harassment when a camera is placed. What about the private camera placed on property with malicious intent? Who regulates the camera on private property? Yes surveillance cameras are important to deter crimes, however it is important to note who is at the other end of the camera? Who really is watching you? Who ultimately views what the camera lens observes? Who decides when a privately owned security surveillance camera is poorly or maliciously aimed (when the camera is deliberately pointed into the windows of a private residence)?

A few months back Delhi Metro CCTV footages were on YouTube and also at some questionable sites. Who owns responsibility for not misusing the data of public CCTV surveillance? In short - who decides and regulates?

Are privately owned, operated surveillance cameras to be treated the same way as public cameras? We also need to draw fine lines about 'Who really is watching you'? 'Who owns that camera anyway'? Big brother? The Corporates? Or harassing neighbour? Who draws the line between public interest and harassment? At the moment, nobody! The camera could legally do what a peeping tom could not do. They could peer inside of windows with the full protection of the law on their side. If a person was standing watching outside a window it could be a crime, yet same person could place a surveillance camera then remotely view a person within the privacy of their home. Most important, it is not against the penal code.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about
When you're in a public space, you're in the eye of the public. So what's the difference in being watched by a closed circuit TV camera? Even if you were caught picking your nose the police aren't going to arrest you for that and no surveillance officer is going put it on national television. Yes, a video surveillance camera in public places is good. Helps in crime-prevention and works as deterrence. Post crime investigation is easy and catching culprits is easy for law-enforcement officers.

Raging debate on the subject at one of the websites revealed the results as follows:
Good idea? 62% Say Yes 38% Say No
The arguments in favour

We should have surveillance cameras in public places because they ensure public safety. Rarely will anyone attempt to harm you when they know their actions are being recorded on camera. Cameras keep you and your personal property safe.

The police can identify criminals recorded with cameras. Through surveillance cameras, the police can both prevent crimes from happening and can quickly solve criminal cases with material evidence.

In addition, surveillance cameras protect against property theft, and vandalism. It is very difficult to get away with stealing something if there are cameras filming you. Therefore, the thief will often get caught. Surveillance cameras will catch the thief before, or during the process of committing the crime.

If no one is aware of the crime until after it has been committed, the surveillance footage is always a crucial piece of evidence during a police investigation. Surveillance cameras have, and will prevent many crimes.

Some people may say that we should not have surveillance cameras in public places. They claim that they invade privacy. That is false. Why be out in public if you want privacy? Just stay at home. Surveillance cameras are meant to keep you and other property safe, not to stalk you. Cameras are there not to invade a person's privacy but to protect the public by deterring criminal activity and by providing material evidence when a crime has been caught on film.

Criminals are less likely to commit crimes in the area if they know they're going to be being filmed the whole time. Things like shoplifting hardly seem worth it when pitted against the possibility of going to jail.

We should have surveillance cameras. Why not?

Having cameras in public places make people feel safe. If people know that there are cameras around them, they will most likely not do anything stupid! People feel safer in the knowledge that a potential mugger or attacker will be put-off by the presence of a camera.

Cameras, through video analytics, now have the ability to zoom in to reveal someone's identity which can be beneficial to crime prevention when used in the correct way. The criminal can be apprehended quickly. Especially in abduction cases a video would be a great way of tracking down a person quickly and maybe preventing a death!

The arguments against

It is an infringement on your civil liberties. Why film innocent people doing nothing criminal in public places. Next, they'll be putting them in public restrooms.

"Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin. A camera everywhere is not a deterrent as all that's needed is a mask. It will allow governments to watch us, which may not matter now, but in the wrong hands, can be catastrophic. We don't deserve to be watched while living our lives.

They don't work. In New York a man got stabbed and was left to die in front of three surveillance cameras. It took the ambulances 2 hours to get to the injured man, and he died before getting to the hospital. The surveillance cameras did nothing to help the man.

I think this is an awful idea because if a window is open somewhere, a person could look through and watch them all the time so that is an invasion of privacy.

Police should be out on the streets trying to prevent crime. CCTV cameras are just a less effective alternative to having police walk the streets. CCTV cameras are just there to give the public a false feeling of safety and are a less effective replacement for policing.

The myth is that CCTV cameras prevent crime but the reality is that they do not.

Internet connected IP cameras are of particular concern. Such systems are more easily "hack-able" than a closed circuit system.
Governance and Governing Body
In the ensuing debates over privacy versus safety and security, advocates on both sides would be wise to consider the following guidelines -

Responsibilities and Reasons: We need to consider privacy issues when creating surveillance policies. For one, cameras should avoid or mask inappropriate views of private areas, such as yards and windows of bedrooms or washrooms.

Crime, Cost and Benefits: Public surveillance camera systems can be a cost-effective way to deter, document, and reduce crimes. For example the cost savings associated with crimes averted through camera systems in a city of USA saved over four dollars for every dollar spent on the technology, while another city yielded a 50 cent return on the dollar.

Document and Publicize Policies. The law enforcing agencies must formulate on how surveillance cameras can be used and what are the disciplinary consequences for misuse. Likewise, officers should be thoroughly trained on these policies and held accountable for abiding by them.

Forecasting and Post-Event Investigations: The usefulness of surveillance technology in preventing and solving crimes depends on the resources put into it. The most effective systems are those which are monitored by trained staff, have enough cameras to detect crimes in progress, and integrate the technology into all manner of law enforcement activities. Use of correct video-analytics can actually raise alarms about crimes or accidents before they take place. Correct management software will help in tagging, archiving and retrieving the authentic data for post-event investigation.

Mix of Man and Machine: People should be out on the streets and work-places trying to prevent crime or losses. CCTV cameras are just a less effective alternative to having police walk the streets or security personnel on patrolling and physical surveillance. As with any technology, the use of cameras is by no means a substitute for good old-fashioned ground work. The camera footage provides additional leads in an investigation and aids in securing witness cooperation. The video footage serves as a complement to - but not a replacement for - eyewitness evidence in the courtroom.

Yes, public interest and safety along with surveillance cameras are here to stay. The need to draw definition of a public camera for public interest v/s a private surveillance camera placed for malafide intention must be addressed quickly. Public surveillance cameras and civil liberties can coexist if CCTV Systems are implemented and employed responsibly.

There are many metro / mega cities in India going for City Surveillance Projects, and, before implementing authorities make a shemozzle of 'policy vacuum', some regulatory mechanisms are needed to be put in place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Role of CCTV Cameras : Public, Privacy and Protection - IFSEC Global | Security and Fire News and Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The potential value of public surveillance technology took on new meaning last April, 2013 when investigators identified the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing after sifting through video images captured by the city's cameras. The Boston bombers were apprehended quickly due to surveillance cameras. By Capt. SB Tyagi, COAS'CC*, CSC, CSM.