Thus there does not seem to be any balancing benefits from the use of the surveillance cameras. (Armstrong, Norris, 1999) The greatest appeal against this method of police surveillance is the individual's right to privacy
At the same time, it is quite possible that individuals may have their own ideas about the concept of right privacy. (Davies, 1998) This means that there is a variable description of undue invasion of privacy to different people
There is increasing progress throughout the world in crime and technology, and this is compelling the officials to depend on video surveillance in increasing numbers for enforcement of laws. (Etzioni, April 27, 2000) The logic comes from the fact that presence of surveillance cameras makes it easier for the police to catch the criminals
This type of surveillance will make it easier for ambulances, fire engines, security guards and police to move to the troubled areas. (Horne, 1998) When the locations of these cameras are known, the location of the crime or similar incidents can be found out accurately
Some feel that this is probably the greatest benefit of the cameras. (Isnard, 2-3 August 2001) However counter arguments against this say that this sense of security does not have any solid base to stand on
These doubts are backed up by the publicity that is given to the new measure as making the crime more risky or difficult. As time goes on, the criminal develops different skills and confidence to successfully commit the crime (Tilley 1999)
There were initial fears in England over the loss of privacy due to video surveillance, but now the technique has wide public support. (Villa, and Whiting, 19, August 2002)
Looking retrospectively at history, the individual rights perspective comes out looking much better than the public order perspective. For example, there was a point when it was illegal in every state for certain sex acts, including homosexual sexual intercourse, to occur (Nagourney 2003)