Outline: Video Surveillance in Public Places

Working Thesis

The pervasive and often covert usage of video surveillance in public places is invasive, dishonest, and unnecessary.

Outline

1. Cameras installed in public places pose an invasion of our most private and vulnerable moments.

A. The public is ignorant about the power of modern surveillance equipment.

B. The public is unaware of the prevalence of cameras, even in seemingly illogical locations.

C. Strossen provides an example of a woman who discovered that she was within the scope of a nearby surveillance camera that had captured her in various states of undress.

2. Many people are unaware of when they are being captured on film—a consequence of blatant dishonesty on the part of employers, property management, and school faculties.

A. There are a great number of private and public facilities that utilize surveillance cameras.

B. Employees, students, and residents should be informed of when they are being filmed.

C. Per Strossen’s example, if property management is aware of any cameras nearby that are capable of capturing the activities of their residents, the residents should be informed.

3. Many cameras are installed in locations wherein they are not necessary.

A. Installing cameras in the workplace promotes a culture of distrust.

B. Surveillance in educational facilities creates a prison-like atmosphere for students.

C. Surveillance cameras within public view create a sense of paranoia and uneasiness.

4. Opposing View: Surveillance cameras aid in the prevention of crime.

A. Nearby authorities may be able to quickly thwart a crime being caught on tape in real-time.

B. Surveillance footage may help authorities extract the details of a crime.

C. Surveillance footage can aid in the identification of criminals at large.

5. Refutation: The amount of arrests made on account of surveillance footage is incongruent with the number of cameras installed.

A. Strossen references a 22-month period over which surveillance cameras were utilized in Time Square that led to only 10 arrests.

B. Strossen also cites an Oakland police chief as stating that, “There is no conclusive way to establish that the presence of video surveillance cameras resulted in the prevention or reduction of crime.”

C. These results and subsequent conclusions made by authorities are common and widespread.

6. Conclusion: For the most part, surveillance cameras cannot be deemed as much more than a mere invasion of public privacy; instead of catching criminals in the act of breaking the law, they primarily catch innocent citizens who should retain the right to live their lives privately, and without being treated with suspicion.