‘Increased use of science and technology to fight crime is an infringement on personal privacy.’ To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Over the past decades, science and technology have been significantly developed in many areas. It is common believed that a new era of technology has been providing a large number of benefits such as medicine, a medical devices, an internet and a crime devices. Especially, when America was attacked by terrorist on 11 September 2001(BBC, September 11, 2001).The high-technology criminal investigation - e.g. Close Circuit Television (CCTV), DNA profiling and Biometrics recognition - were used to investigate the terrorist. The use of CCTV and Biometrics technique has dramatically increased in the concerned countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom, London has set up 5,000 cameras in the central line tube station (McCahill M and Norris C, June 2002) , in order to prevent terrorism and a reduction of crime rate. Even though, it is generally agreed that the using of high-technology to reduce crime or protect society from terrorist has more advantages than disadvantages. However, some people argued that their privacy was irritated by the crime devices. This essay will give the drawbacks of using technology to fight crime that might impact personal privacy.
The common viewpoint is that the crime high-technology has been a breakthrough of catching the criminal as well as benefits for society, for example when someone was killed at the car park where the CCTV were already set up, the criminal face was captured so it was easy for the police to catch them. However, it is often argued that CCTV is appropriate or not to install in the private areas e.g. house, toilet. Bennetto J, The Independent, stated that Londoner has been captured by cameras on the street about 300 times a day (The Independent, 2002) in order to decrease crime rate. As well as some argument from Fussey’s study was addressed that “In the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100% of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100% of the populations are criminals, including the police.” (Fussey, 2008).Regarding DNA databases and eyes recognition are an individual uniqueness some people was considered as a crucial identification and denied to disclose to public databases. Finally, some research was suggested that the impact of using technology should be considered (Fussey, 2008).
References
1. America’s Day of Terror 11 September 2001, viewed 8 August, 2008, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror>.
2. McCahill M and Norris C (2002), ‘CCTV in London’, June, P 6.
3. P Fussey, 2008 ‘Beyond Liberty, Beyond Security: The Politics of Public Surveillance’, British Politics, British Politics (2008) 3, 120–135.
4. Bennetto J, 2002, ‘Half CCTV schemes do not reduce crime rates’, The Independent, 29 June, viewed 8 August 2008, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/half-cctv-schemes-do-not-reduce--crime-rates-646686.html>.
5. Mazerolle, L., Hurley, D. & Chamlin, M. 2002, ‘Social Behaviour in Public Space: An Analysis of Behavioural Adaptations to CCTV’, Security Journal, 15/3, pp. 59-75.
6. Adams, J. 1996, ‘Privacy: Security surveillance versus civil rights’, Security Australia, 16/4, May, pp. 24-28.
7. Brown, S. 1998, ‘what’s the problem, girls? CCTV and the gendering of public safety’, in C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong eds., Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Over the past decades, science and technology have been significantly developed in many areas. It is common believed that a new era of technology has been providing a large number of benefits such as medicine, a medical devices, an internet and a crime devices. Especially, when America was attacked by terrorist on 11 September 2001(BBC, September 11, 2001).The high-technology criminal investigation - e.g. Close Circuit Television (CCTV), DNA profiling and Biometrics recognition - were used to investigate the terrorist. The use of CCTV and Biometrics technique has dramatically increased in the concerned countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom, London has set up 5,000 cameras in the central line tube station (McCahill M and Norris C, June 2002) , in order to prevent terrorism and a reduction of crime rate. Even though, it is generally agreed that the using of high-technology to reduce crime or protect society from terrorist has more advantages than disadvantages. However, some people argued that their privacy was irritated by the crime devices. This essay will give the drawbacks of using technology to fight crime that might impact personal privacy.
The common viewpoint is that the crime high-technology has been a breakthrough of catching the criminal as well as benefits for society, for example when someone was killed at the car park where the CCTV were already set up, the criminal face was captured so it was easy for the police to catch them. However, it is often argued that CCTV is appropriate or not to install in the private areas e.g. house, toilet. Bennetto J, The Independent, stated that Londoner has been captured by cameras on the street about 300 times a day (The Independent, 2002) in order to decrease crime rate. As well as some argument from Fussey’s study was addressed that “In the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100% of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100% of the populations are criminals, including the police.” (Fussey, 2008).Regarding DNA databases and eyes recognition are an individual uniqueness some people was considered as a crucial identification and denied to disclose to public databases. Finally, some research was suggested that the impact of using technology should be considered (Fussey, 2008).
References
1. America’s Day of Terror 11 September 2001, viewed 8 August, 2008, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror>.
2. McCahill M and Norris C (2002), ‘CCTV in London’, June, P 6.
3. P Fussey, 2008 ‘Beyond Liberty, Beyond Security: The Politics of Public Surveillance’, British Politics, British Politics (2008) 3, 120–135.
4. Bennetto J, 2002, ‘Half CCTV schemes do not reduce crime rates’, The Independent, 29 June, viewed 8 August 2008, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/half-cctv-schemes-do-not-reduce--crime-rates-646686.html>.
5. Mazerolle, L., Hurley, D. & Chamlin, M. 2002, ‘Social Behaviour in Public Space: An Analysis of Behavioural Adaptations to CCTV’, Security Journal, 15/3, pp. 59-75.
6. Adams, J. 1996, ‘Privacy: Security surveillance versus civil rights’, Security Australia, 16/4, May, pp. 24-28.
7. Brown, S. 1998, ‘what’s the problem, girls? CCTV and the gendering of public safety’, in C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong eds., Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Written by Siri
57.jpg){kind=small}
No comments:
Post a Comment