A young woman goes to the back of the office building where she works to change clothes. She later learns a surveillance camera caught everything including the times when she had a severe sunburn, went to what she thought was a private area, unbuttoned her blouse and applied prescription ointment. Police surveillance cameras sprout like weeds at stores, traffic lights and nearly every other corner of society.  There are those who feel safety and security is more important than their personal and constitutional freedoms including the right to privacy and on the other hand, there are Americans from all political affiliations who view the lack of solitude on the use of surveillance cameras by government and police (Buzzle 2015). Surveillance cameras used to catch criminals can coexist if they are implemented and emploted responsibly. For one, cameras should avoid or mask inappropriate views of private areas such as yards and second-story windows. Law enforcement agencies should also document and publicize policies on how surveillance cameras can be used and what the consequences are for misuse. Supreme court cases include potentially blackmail and likewise countless numbers of discrimination threats toward individuals.

Some people advocate that this type of cameras will always guarantee freedom and most importantly, privacy. But does it really? During the Super Bowl in 2001 where thousands and thousands of fans walked through the front gates not knowing they were constantly being watched. The computer scanned their faces and observed their images with computer files of wanted criminals and terrorists. The actions had the ability to immediately identify anyone who had a history of illegal activities. Those who matched a certain photo were set aside and questioned. The surveillance cameras matched nineteen criminal faces among the thousands fans at the Super Bowl. (Security Speaks 2015) Most believed that this was completely inappropriate. Some said that this type of technology isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be used at all to help catch public crime. One of the nineteen victims states anonymously that he felt discriminated by someone observing him by his physical appearance and features. "Identifying someone as a criminal because they look suspicious is unfair especially without proof." (The London Times) These cameras sorted people and put them into categories by race such as Canadians/Whites, Hispanics, Chinese, African Americans and so forth. This method was used because FBI was in search of a male who committed rape and murder in 2000. Being African American as his race, those victims set aside had a skin tone resemblance. (Security Speaks 2015)

Police surveillance is too much when it begins to invade ones' rights and interferes with the 14th amendment. A numerous number of citizens state that their constitutional rights are being regulated in which they have strong opposition towards. The ACLU (Americans Civil Liberties Union) which is a non-profit organization continues to debate and took a stand against the invasion. According to Stanley (a former investigator) mentioned that the ACLU is currently looking at the invasion of privacy used by United Auction Vehicles (UAV) as a threat to an Americans way of life. United Auction Vehicles used at American Mexican borders under Los Angeles police do not provide any sort of guarantee to the right of privacy under U.S.A law due to rapid growth in technology. Slogogin's research data shows that Americans in general have concerns about regulations of the constitutions over using police cameras in public. (Palm Desert 2013)

Like everything in our lives, the law enforcement cameras could be as evil as good. Although the law protects us it is not possible to protect us at its fullest. Police cameras can be too extremely dangerous for the public. In 2001, a black mailing case arrived at the Supreme Court. The case included details about a hacker that received access to a police surveillance camera gathering private information about Dr. King (a current physiologist). Soon after, Dr. Kings's private life was opened to everyone on social media. The data collected had affairs, medical conditions, specific details on certain websites he visited, religion and criminal records. He was humiliated. (21Alive 2015) The government have the ability to access from telephone conversations to your emails and much more. They know everything. Taking into consideration that government and police are able to take it to such level, it has come to our understanding that there is a greater opportunity for all your secrets to be coming out in public without your consent. Yes of coarse surveillance cameras detect crimes, but processing the idea that politics can get non-relatable information in their hands has no purpose. Those secrets that at one point you knew only can now be featured with the world. Many say it's rare for a person to experience such a thing, but it can happen to anybody. (Anonymous 2003)

Many say that cameras in public places can be beneficial to our country's economy. The average cost to install a simple security camera ranges between $875-$1000. However true, this idea may be, in the past decade unemployment has been increasing incredibly. Several cameras have replaced jobs. (Anonymous 2014) Instead of hiring a guard to keep watch of certain areas, it is now easier and more affordable to simply install a camera. Revenues from it has tripled unemployment, causing the U.S. to lose financially.

Referring back to countless numbers of public surveys, many questioned why privacy is needed in public when the whole idea of surveillance cameras is to protect us. "If they are not in our homes or in our cars, it shouldn't be a big deal" says Sarah from Northern California surveyed by her college. (Medscape Log In 2015) But even more important, according to Neil M. Richards, police surveillance cameras can be very persuasive. (Richards 2013) For example, a police surveillance camera located in a local Target store in North Carolina detected a worker purchasing more vitamins and scent-free lotions giving them the conclusion she was pregnant and fired her before she even told them about her situation. (London Times)

It can be necessary, even helpful but unconstrained surveillance violates our freedom of mind. It can be abusive when it comes to legal rights, social experiences or events, and for our country’s overall economy benefits. By recognizing the harms of surveillance cameras, we can receive several benefits without bringing in the subject of liberty and power. We need to balance between the lifestyle of an individual and the government as a whole.

References
Pradhan, Suchete. "Are Security Cameras an Invasion of Privacy?" Buzzle. Buzzle.com, 06 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 May 2015.
"Medscape Log In." Medscape Log In. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2015.
"00.03.05: Privacy in the Age of Video Surveillance This Is Not Your Father's Candid Camera." 00.03.05: Privacy in the Age of Video Surveillance This Is Not Your Father's Candid Camera. N.p.,n.d. Web. 22 May 2015.
"Privacy vs. Security.' Security Speaks RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2015.
"Park Zone." Are Law Enforcement Cameras an Invasion of Privacy? N.p., n.d. Web 22 May 2015.
"Are Surveillance Cameras Good Security or an Invasion of Privacy?" Palm Desert, California Patch. N.p., 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 22 May 2015.
Security Cameras: Public Safety or Invasion of Privacy? (NBC33 VIDEO) " 21Alive N.p., n.d. Web 22 May 2015.