 The attacks on September 11, 2001 left the seemingly invincible nation of America in utter trauma and shock. Weak security was a huge reason to blame for the hijacking of the planes and destruction of the World Trade Centers. This crisis subsequently led to a huge push in America's national security. These advancements in technology and surveillance have increased tremendously since 9/11; however, a new issue has surfaced regarding America's well being, and that is the excess of surveillance and the infiltration of the people's privacy. In recent years camera surveillance has increased from just monitoring banks and airports, to watching streets and homes. These new video surveillance cameras are also equipped with very advanced features capable of storing data and recognizing faces. This rapid growth in surveillance technology should be unsettling because of the amount of private information that is accessible through these cameras. This increasing network of video surveillance will continue to get more invasive and intrusive of Americans privacy rights without proper regulation through government policy. 

The current legal policies governing extensive video surveillance and Americans privacy are both very scarce and do not properly outline the balance of national security with the people's rights and liberties. The lack of thorough policy for this issue is based off the fact that this type of surveillance is just becoming prevalent in the nations department of security.  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) limits law enforcement ability to tap and access private information. (Electronic Communications and Privacy Act of 1986) However, this act is flawed because it only applies to surveillance with sound, which is basically useless unless all closed-circuit surveillance cameras monitor sound, which most do not because they are more costly. A revision to this act should be proposed stating that the ECPA should monitor all types of video surveillance whether it be aural or not. 

Another ineffective policy would be the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that requires the government to make information available to the public. The failure of this act is shown when surveillance data is released to the public without proper consent. This act mostly applies to surveillance on the state level. The issue of video surveillance on the state level varies quite a bit. For example, in Arizona it is only a misdemeanor to mount a camera for public surveillance purposes without posting a warning sign. Adversely, in New York, it is only legal to implement video surveillance in the case of pursuing a criminal for a warrant. Additionally, the crime of the criminal must also be very serious. (Sloan) A regulatory proposal to the issue of electronic surveillance and privacy was made in 1999 by the American Bar Association (ABA). This proposal stresses that although security is very much benefited by technological surveillance, it is a huge, growing threat to people's rights. More specifically a threat to both the 1st Amendment, which states the freedom of speech and the 4th Amendment, which states there shall be no unreasonable search and seizure. The ABA proposed that these video surveillance monitors should not be used randomly, in a discriminatory way, or in an intrusive way to ones privacy. (Pompano) I do believe the ABA Standards created a solid foundation for the balance of electronic surveillance and privacy however, several national attacks occurred after of the release of the standards thus proving that the proposal needs to be completed.

I have developed a multi-step proposal in which this matter at hand can possibly be resolved or at least take a leap towards resolution. This issue of video surveillance interfering with the public's privacy is a daunting problem in which there is no exact, clear-cut method to solve. It has many different variables and exceptions that can really only be settled with extensive public experiments over time. My proposal includes six different sections that discuss the cost, capabilities, purpose, impact on rights, abuse, and the participation of public video surveillance in America. 

The first section to my proposal brings up the actual cost of implementing a network of closed-circuit surveillance cameras as opposed to another variation of crime prevention. The cost to buy, prepare, install, maintain and eventually fix these cameras varies between the models and make. (Prall) For example, some cameras have the ability to zoom, record in high resolution, and also recognize people's faces. These different modifications eventually must be decided by the city that is implementing them. The city also must realize that if this is perhaps a 10+ million dollar project, other areas of security could be substantially improved for that cost. My proposal would be to install cameras that have the ability to focus and move, but not identify people's faces. I also propose that the governing body should use any excess money to improve security in other areas, such as updating or expanding the police force.  

The second step of my proposal discusses how public video surveillance systems should also be assessed making sure they are both capable and efficient in doing what they were installed to do. With the amount of money, time, and risks that it takes to develop and manage these devices, the cameras should be completing the task that they were implemented to do. (Shah, Braithwaite) The video surveillance system should be monitored itself to bring forth data that can be shared with the public about the effectiveness of it. For example, if the cameras have trouble with vision and movement in certain weather conditions, the constant evaluation of the system should recognize that and fix it. 

The third section of my proposal is about the actual purpose of the surveillance cameras. The purpose of implementing these cameras must be clearly laid out and shown to the public so that they can judge the legitimacy of it. I believe the overall opinion of the surveillance cameras will positively change if the governing body teaches their citizens about the system, allowing them to make a judgment on the lawfulness and validity of the project. (Prall) Another part of this section of my policy would be informing the public that the government would be held accountable for the failure or misuse of the system. 

The next part of my proposal discusses the impact of public video surveillance on people's privacy rights and liberties. Although most governing bodies are not out looking for ways to infringe upon the rights of their citizens, it is important to realize the vulnerability of privacy of the people who are being monitored. Privacy and anonymity are both at risk from these cameras because of the information they can access from just watching a person. For example they could possibly pick up on a personal conversation or focus in on something on a persons cellphone. Another huge point in this section would be making sure equality is always exercised while monitoring these cameras. It is easy for stereotypes of gender, race, religion, age, and status to play a role in discrimination and lead to excessive surveillance, which is unfair. The last point to this section would be to have some way of making the trained personnel or officers who are monitoring these devices be held accountable for deviating from their limits of surveillance. I propose that there should be a way to keep the ones who overlook these cameras in check so that corruption does not occur and ruin the surveillance project. 

The fifth step to my proposal is similar to my last point and that is to prevent abuse in the monitoring of this video surveillance network. This could be done mostly through an online administrative system that can block users from certain areas of stored data. The reason that this step is so vital in the proposal is because the number of computer hackers has tremendously grown over the years especially because of the technological advancements that have come about. These secure databases that store the video data must be constantly updated and watched to prevent hackers from accessing private footage that could have very important information on it. I also believe that the stored data should be kept in a safeguarded place both physically and electronically. 

My last step of my policy is to make sure that the people being monitored by this camera network have an understanding of what the cameras capabilities are and how it will be used to deter crimes and catch criminals. They also should be allowed to express freely on how it affects them, whether it is positive or negative, and if anything needs to be adjusted from their perspective. (Prall) In my opinion, the biggest factor in having a new and successful mass project is to have the people in agreement and have public accountability. 

Overall, I believe that my proposal to balance the use of public video surveillance and Americans privacy's rights would be successful. The areas that I proposed to be revised before implementing the camera network were cost, capabilities, purpose, impact on rights, abuse prevention, and public participation. As I stated previously, this issue has many different variables, however, I believe that the most important branches to this debate are the ones in my policy proposal. 

Adversely to my proposal, there are some counterarguments that can be made. For example, some people would argue that if a city is pouring millions of dollars into this type of project, they might as well get the most high tech cameras that can do many beneficial yet intrusive things. However, I chose to propose the idea that these cameras should be designed to zoom in and have very high resolution, however, I do not think that they should have the power to biometrically distinguish a humans face. I believe that there is a line that technology should not cross when it comes to accessing our physical make-up and other personal information. Another counterargument would be about the deterrent of suicide terrorist bombers. Suicide bombers will not be deterred by video cameras because they are willing to kill themselves and others regardless. Being captured on film could also possibly promote them to do it more often because of honor and respect within their terrorist organization.  

In conclusion, the national security of America is being threatened both internally and externally and it is the people of Americas job to protect it. The issue, however, is the point at which the importance of the nations security interferes with people's personal privacy. The debate is especially prevalent in the current push towards public surveillance cameras. Many people see this type of general surveillance as a way for the government or "Big Brother" to spy on their personal lives. The current policies are not set up correctly to properly regulate the privacy of the people and the security of the nation so that could potentially become an issue but with the right, thorough policies set forth it could be prevented. My proposal is a six-part policy that addresses many different variables of the surveillance cameras such as cost compared to the capabilities of the cameras. The purpose of the cameras must be clearly defined so that there is no misinterpretation of its use. The impact on privacy rights is also very important when possibly implementing such a device with the power of capturing a lot of valuable personal information. The next branch is preventing abuse of the video camera network. The last step is participation of the general public in hopes to change the stereotypical view of surveillance from negative to positive by informing and educating them and giving them an opportunity to speak their minds about the issue. On a larger scale, the implantation of a network of public surveillance could impact the advancement of technology. With a new focus on video cameras, the technology and security with them could vastly improve and expand in other areas and ultimately prevent and bring to justice the crime that is infiltrating the great nation of America.  

    
