British people are said to be the most watched people in the world. There are nearly 3 million CCTV cameras monitoring the UK.
Many human rights groups oppose what seems like an all-seeing State on the grounds of privacy. They claim that individuals have a fundamental right to a private life.
Needless to say, this is true. But, it is also true that they have the right to be safe when they make that journey home every night from work. Rights can be seen as relative, as opposed to absolute. Thus, when they conflict (as is evident with CCTVs), we must weigh them up. I for one would rather be watched every step of the way on my journey home than be mugged.
Perhaps some would claim that this argument is redundant - CCTVs do not necessarily reduce crime. Well, of course, CCTV cameras do not eradicate crime - but it does undeniably act as a deterrant for many would-be criminals. The prospect of having your face pop up crystal clear on a police officer's computer is, I am sure, not one a criminal relishes.
In a perfect world, yes, the right to privacy would always be preserved. But, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. There are criminals who want to steal our wallets, rob our homes and terrorise our country. Our right to safety does mean that our privacy must be curtailed to some extent for the greater good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Points made in paras 1 and 2 would have some semblance of legitimacy if CCTVs, and those watching them, served only to guide us home safely. Is it not dangerously naive to think, as you do, that CCTVs pose no threat to our liberty? It doesn't "seem like an all seeing state", it is an all seeing state. You talk of a perfect world and the naivity of those who uphold without limit the right to privacy; the irony is that only in a perfect world would we simply "be watched every step of the way" and no more.
ReplyDeleteWhat other (sinister) purpose do CCTVs serve? I'm not sure what you are suggesting that CCTV cameras are used for apart from protecting the general public!
ReplyDeleteBesides, I don't think CCTVs "pose no threat to our liberty." Of course they do - it infringes our right to privacy. But I believe that this is a justified invasion because it is for a right that we should value more - being safe. If you're not safe (which CCTVs can improve to a greater or lesser extent), then there is no privacy to protect. I think the right to be safe is far more important to any worries we have about privacy (which I think are fairly unfounded anyway)
I'm keen to hear your response!