As we have seen in the last several years, the risk of damage to our person and property continues to increase. Many people have opted to use audio and video surveillance in order to combat safety threats, both real and imagined. Currently, President Bush is trying to push a measure that will give retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that release the private phone records of their customers. Many municipalities are also adding surveillance cameras in public areas like town squares and traffic lights. While these add a measure of security, our lives become less and less private. While some people may not mind being watched and heard 24 hours a day, there are some people who feel that this is a gross invasion of privacy. On what side of this argument do you fall? Which do you feel is more important: Privacy or Security?

In a reality TV culture, 24 hour access and availability are commonplace. The technological advances of the last 20 years have given us pagers, cell phones, PDA’s, Blackberries, I-phones and other ways to stay connected constantly. With many people searching for their 15 minutes of fame, the idea of being watched and recorded for posterity have become a very attractive prospect. In a culture where a person can be famous for nothing at all gives plausibility to the notion that all one needs to be famous is nominal amount of individuality and being in the right place at the right time.

Moving away from the subject of fame, the topic of surveillance is controversial to say the least. Especially in age where many feel that constant surveillance and the “Big Brother” phenomenon in general are invasions of privacy. However, there are many reasons why surveillance is useful. In the 1980’s law enforcement began to require that all police vehicles be equipped with audio and video equipment. This was very helpful in cases where the accounts of the arresting officer and the accused differed. It was no longer a case of “your word against mine”. A judge need only subpoena a video tape and the case is quickly settled. The recorded footage is for the protection of the officers and citizens. We see cases all the time where crooks and thieves are identified and apprehended only through being caught on tape. Video surveillance is much more reliable than eye-witness accounts, which are often skewed by fear, excitement, exaggeration and memory failure. Surveillance cameras are also very useful in halting and preventing abuse and neglect in private homes where baby sitters are employed as well as nursing homes for the infirm and the elderly.

Although objectivity is in many cases the best way to look at a subject, arguments against surveillance don’t stand up nearly as well. Threats to our security and safety are ever present. Many people resist video and audio surveillance based on the principle that it is an invasion of privacy. That there is no need listen in on the phone calls or record the movements of “everyday citizens”. The air is heavy with conspiracy theories that suggest the slippery slope of moving further into the culture of surveillance will lead to a society similar to that in George Orwell’s classic, 1984. However, people subscribe to the philosophy that the truly innocent shouldn’t mind being watched since they presumably have nothing to hide. Some would even suggest that the notion of privacy itself is illusory in an increasingly urban, globalized and technologically connected world. In fact, once you step outside your door, you are a participating and therefore observable part of the public record. Furthermore, surveillance is one of the best ways to protect assets, both human and material. No matter what side of the argument you side on, the simple truth is that a compromise must be made. In order to reap the many benefits that surveillance offers, you must be willing to sacrifice elements of privacy.