Greater Surveillance Is Not a Desirable Answer to the Problem of Crime

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The relevance of surveillance in the fight against crime has remained a controversial topic over the past decade. According to Espejo, L’Huillier, and Weber (2016), the United Kingdom has over 4.2 million closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras spread across the country, especially in major urban centers to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies monitor and fight crime in the society. It means that there is one CCTV for every 14 people in the country. The emergence of the surveillance society is motivated by the desire to have a crime-free society. The proponents of this approach of fighting crime believe that the fact that people are aware that their actions are under surveillance deter them from committing a crime. It also simplifies the work of police law enforcement agencies when investigating criminal activities in the country. However, some studies have refuted the claim that greater surveillance can reduce crime in society. According to Nellis (2014), greater surveillance only succeeds in breaching the privacy of innocent citizens without having any meaningful impact on fighting security, especially among those who are fully aware of its existence. The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether greater surveillance is a desirable answer to the problem of crime in society.

Discussion

The United Kingdom’s national government spends millions of pounds to install and replace CCTV cameras in strategic places, especially along the streets and highways to help monitor criminal activities. The cost of having a fingerprint database, monitoring telephone calls, e-mails, posts, and social media messages is even greater than that needed to manage the surveillance cameras. A section of the society is strongly opposed to the idea of investing taxpayers’ money in greater surveillance because it is not having any meaningful impact on improving security (McCahill 2014). On the other hand, some people believe that any attempt to limit surveillance can cripple law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The opponents and proponents of surveillance have valid issues that they raise to support their arguments. It is necessary to review the two sides of an argument before concluding as to whether greater surveillance is desirable in fighting crime.

Proponents of Greater Surveillance

According to Granick (2017), one of the fundamental responsibilities of the national government is to ensure that residents of the United Kingdom are safe from any criminal or terror activities. The law enforcement agencies (the territorial police service, the national law enforcement agencies, and the miscellaneous police service) working closely with intelligence agencies have the responsibility of enhancing the security and safety of people and property in the country (Jeffreys-Jones 2017). When dealing with issues of security, these agencies cannot afford to be reactionary in their response. Reacting when properties or lives are already lost is not a strategy that the government can embrace. Threats to security should be dealt with before they can affect society.

In a report by Granick (2017), the crime rate in the United Kingdom has gone down significantly because of effective policing, including the enhanced use of surveillance. However, there is a new wave of terror attacks that are causing major concerns in the country. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. France, Belgium, Russia, and the United States are some of the developed nations that have come under increasing attacks by extremists over the past two decades (Ferguson 2017). Greater surveillance is critical in fighting these terrorists. The cost of loss of lives and destruction of property is incomparable to the money spent on surveillance. Some of these terror attacks are made possible because of the limited surveillance by the intelligence agencies. A good example is the Orlando nightclub shooting on June 12, 2016, as Jeffreys-Jones (2017) observes.

Omar Mateen, a security guard, aged 29 years, organized and executed one of the worst terror attacks in the United States in recent times. He targeted a nightclub in Orlando. 49 innocent people lost their lives, and 53 others sustained gunshot wounds (Jeffreys-Jones 2017). Analysis of this terror act reveals dangers in security lapses, especially when it comes to enhanced surveillance. The lapse in security surveillance started when Omar purchased a semi-automatic rifle and a large round of ammunition without proper justification. Several days before the attack, he had confided in a friend and told him that he was planning to kill people. Hours before the attack, he used several Facebook posts to tell the American community that he was seeking vengeance for American airstrikes in Syria and Iraq (Ferguson 2017).

His digital footprint also shows that he visited websites and pages that sympathized with or supported terror groups such as ISIL and al-Qaida. Soon after that, he went ahead to attack the nightclubs. These events should have drawn the attention of the intelligence community if there were proper surveillance. The activities of this terrorist went unchecked, and the outcome of that error of omission was the death of many innocent Americans. It took a 911 distress call from the victims for the law enforcement agencies to realize that there was a security breach (McCahill 2014). That should not happen in modern society where technology makes it easy to fight such crimes. The events surrounding the Charlie Hebdo attack also demonstrated the dangers of limited surveillance in society.

According to Granick (2017), British society expects the government to assure it of maximum security. The performance of the government is often put into question when lives and properties are lost to criminals and terrorists. People opposed to increased surveillance either lack proper knowledge of security and intelligence management or have something sinister to hide (Ferguson 2017). Officers responsible for fighting crime in the country are human beings. They do not have supernormal skills to predict the actions of criminals and terrorists. They need to use technology to assist them in making the right decisions when fighting crime. When they have means of monitoring activities of specific individuals considered dangerous to the society, such as those who have been indicted for criminal acts or classified as terror sympathizers, they can determine when they are planning to commit a crime.

The problem of terrorism is particularly becoming a major concern in society. The United Kingdom has received thousands of refugees and asylum seekers over the last five years because of the war in Syria, Yemen, Libya, and other countries in the Middle East. Although the majority of these refugees are in genuine need of assistance, Nellis (2014) warns that a few are members or sympathizers of extremist groups keen on attacking the West for its involvement in war in the MENA (the Middle East and North Africa) region. Failing to maintain proper surveillance of these people may pose a serious threat to British society. Granick (2017) also explains that the emergence of cybercrimes forces security agents to maintain online surveillance as a way of fighting crime.

Opponents of Greater Surveillance

Greater surveillance is not a desirable answer to the problem of crime. British society highly values privacy. It is unfair for the government to monitor the activities of its private citizens without a court order. The surveillance is shifting from the use of CCTV cameras to the scrutiny of phone calls, e-mails, and communications in social media (McCahill 2014). If the current trends continue, it is evident that security agencies will start wiretapping most of their citizens in the name of fighting crime. The law requires security agents to seek a court order in case they want to collect information from phone calls or e-mails from people believed to be a threat to security. The judge is expected to analyze the presented case if it has a valid reason to support such surveillance. In many cases, such requests are denied if it is established that it will constitute an unfair breach of privacy. However, security agents are now bypassing the law. They are subjecting people to surveillance without any proper justification. Nellis (2014) explains that one of the problems with such unauthorized surveillance is the misuse of mined data. In an attempt to create big data to fight crime, intelligence agencies are now conducting massive online surveillance on companies and individuals (Jeffreys-Jones 2017).

The problem with such surveillance is that sometimes it leads to misuse of private information. These individuals involved in mining and keeping such data can be tempted to misuse the information they gather. Companies spend millions of pounds to come up with unique strategies to enhance their competitiveness. They have to protect their data from their rivals to enhance their competitiveness. When such information is mined and made accessible to other firms through corrupt officers, the affected companies will lose their competitive edge in the market. In other cases, intelligence officers take advantage of their position to monitor the activities of their friends, family members, or other interest groups. Recent statistics on terror activities show that surveillance may not necessarily fight crime in society. Over the last ten years, cases of a terror attack have been common in the country despite the massive investment that the government has made to improve surveillance (Ferguson 2017). The Manchester Arena Bombing on May 22, 2017, demonstrated the limitations of surveillance in fighting terrorism. Other recent cases include the London Bridge attack, Finsbury Park attack, and Westminster attack. These attacks occurred at a time when the government promised its citizens that their security would be enhanced because of improved surveillance.

Conclusion

Greater surveillance may not be the most desirable approach to managing crime in the country because of issues such as breach of privacy and high costs incurred by the government. Many people value their privacy and do not support approaches that involve monitoring every action they take. However, it is an unavoidable approach to managing the problem of crime. The emergence of cybercrime means that the use of traditional approaches may not be very effective in improving security in the country. When it comes to choosing between privacy and safety, society must choose the latter, which means that although greater surveillance may be undesirable, it is unavoidable in the fight against crime.

Reference List

Espejo, G, L’Huillier, G & Weber, R 2016, ‘A game-theoretical approach for policing decision support’, European Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 338-356.

Ferguson, A 2017, Rise of big data policing: surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement, University Press, New York, NY.

Granick, J 2017, American spies: modern surveillance, why you should care, and what to do about it, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Jeffreys-Jones, R 2017, We know all about you: the story of surveillance in Britain and America, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McCahill, M 2014, The surveillance web: the rise of visual surveillance in an English city, 2nd edn., Routledge, New York, NY.

Nellis, M 2014, ‘Understanding the electronic monitoring of offenders in Europe: expansion, regulation and prospects’, Crime Law Social Change, vol. 62, no. 4, 489-510.

Click Here To Order Now!