Video Surveillance

With the advances in video surveillance technology, people have come to expect they will be put under surveillance when going into and around businesses, parks, government buildings, etc. The idea is making it safer for everyone.

Opponents say however that video surveillance is a form of controlling citizens and they don't think its fair. They're argument is that government "could" have the ability to monitor our every move at some point. They will give you scenarios like "What if they order the businesses to give them access to their video surveillance cameras?" The argument is of course that they will have somewhat of a monopoly.

On the other end of the video surveillance debate, businesses feel (understandably) that video surveillance is key to protecting their merchandise. To a business, video surveillance is simply non-negotiable and an absolute necessity in maintaining their assets. Most businesses agree that once the closed circuit camera systems (video surveillance cameras) were installed, their losses went down immediately.

Another view that most agree on however is that video surveillance makes most people feel safe. In fact, a lot of retailers have no intention of even using their surveillance tapes for prosecution, or "catching the bad guy." They're put up simply to make the customer feel safe when in their store. Customers themselves have even said when they see the video cameras up (if they believed they were monitored), they feel safer and will continue to shop at the store.

• Previous: Video Surveillance (Gone Too Far)
• Next: IP Video Surveillance