TS+P1+Video+Surveillance+ON-Paper

**__A Look Into the Eyes of Spies__** Very Good, I enjoyed your history of the use of CCTV and your reference to the class work on the constitution. GRADE A user:pbeder

A video pertains to the reception of television pictures. Surveillance is a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. When put together these two words form video surveillance which is the use of television cameras for surveillance. Video surveillance was made to be a source of observance in which the observer is supposed to be oblivious to being observed. They zoom and swivel to locate the target given to observe stalkingly.

Video surveillance cameras began their inventions in 1965. There were rumors in the US that suggested that the police were using surveillance cameras in public places. These rumors were confirmed in 1969 when police cameras were installed in the New York City Municipal Building near City Hall. From there came its sprouting. It spread into many cities because of its fast and active "protectiveness". When thinking on video surveillance you think of watching people on a television that are standing outside your house but video surveillance is bigger than that. Video surveillance is CCTV which stands for Closed Circuit Television. CCTV is one of the worlds most active source of technology. It has especially increased in activity since the Sept. 11 tragedy. CCTV is mostly found in Europe now a days and England is starting to catch on. It is said that the average Lomdoner is said to have had their picture taken about three hundred times in one day. What is video surveillance? Is it good? Is it bad? Does it help you? Is it invasive? Video surveillance is a source of information technology that many websites and articles when read will have the answer to one or many of these questions. Video surveillance is found to be both intrusive and life saving. It's intrusive when it's spying on you without your knowledge. Its life saving when it helps you to evade criminals who are after you and you can spot them on a surveillance camera so you can catch them before they catch you.

Some organizations take a side and say that it is either good or bad and can not be both. Organizations for this technology will say that this technology is very helpful to all. These companies will say that it helps to protect buildings from intruders, your home from intruders, you from harm like if you are in an alley or parking lot and someone is wishing to harm you. The government uses this technology to watch out for felons and criminals. The satellite uses this technology to not only show pinpoints on a map but pictures, videos, and scenes of the location being looked for. The negative side to this technology will say that this technology is intrusive. Companies like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) will say that it invades your privacy when stepping outside your house or walking on the street. Some people say that this technology is unlawful because it can invade your privacy without you knowing about it. When looking at this situation from a far with the known facts just stated I would say that this technology can be both helpful and harmful to all in whatever situation.

When looking on information on video surveillance you will find various links that go totally off the point that you’re trying to get to. When looking, I found many interesting articles. These are just three articles that I found an interest in.

One is and article written by NASA News called 'NASA Helps Cops Catch Criminals on Earth with Video Technology Invented by Space Scientists'. In the article they bring up three keynotes that they during their surveys and observations. They said that the FBI and other law enforcement officers recently have been seeking the help of two NASA scientists who study the Sun and storms like hurricanes. They also say that the NASA researchers used their expertise and equipment in order to analyze satellite video which created technology that can dramatically improved TV images including crime scene videos which related itself to the use of forensics. I found it very interesting how easily the law enforcement agencies seemed to be cooperating with NASA without any broadcast fights for territory and how it is used to correct daily atmosphere.

Another is an article is a self-like documentary written by a woman named Laurie Long. It is called 'Laurie Long: The Dating Surveillance Project'. She based this piece on how she uses video surveillance equipment to spy on the men that she was considering dating. She said that some video surveillance pieces can video tape you without your knowledge and that anyone can be watching you without your knowledge. She also said that there are many things that can be used to hide a surveillance camera like a pen, button, glasses, hairclip, and **so** many more. This article brought my attention to a peak because I find it odd how this woman thought that she had the write to video tape her dates without their knowledge and those in the surrounding areas because if they went to a restaurant she's also taping those people too and how easily she got away with breaking the law. I also found it interesting how desperate she was to find a man. A question to be asked for this article is what is the limitation to privacy?

The last one is an article by the American Civil Liberties Union called 'What’s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?’ They basically state how video surveillance cameras, are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life. They also say how the police in Washington are in the process of setting up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view video from schools, neighborhoods, Metro stations, and prominent buildings around the city. They say how fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more. I want to know how they have so much money going into this technology and it hasn't shown a lot of progress in overtime. The progress seems to be limited by the amount of money given to that company. From this article I can truly say that many people will ask, what will happen to this technology in the end.

Video surveillance has been made out to be cameras that you see yourself on the screen of a television would when you walk into convenience store or supermarket. Video surveillance is more than that. It dates back all the way to many laws that are famous today and have been around for a while.

The fourth amendment speaks about "the people’s rights to be secure of their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". This identifies to video surveillance because when people who that they don't like video surveillance it is invasive to their privacy; they are basically restating this amendment. They do not feel secure and well protected when surrounded by surveillance everywhere they turn. Sometimes they just want to be alone, only with the eyes of themselves. It as if being stalked 24/7.

The fourth amendment also states that it protects you against "unreasonable searches and seizures". This was said to have been adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. It's ironic how this amendment was built to keep the British for surveilling use when in turn we're observing ourselves and our own. It is true when stating that the fourth amendment has lost a major role in the Bill of Rights because if it did play a major role then **a lot** of the things happening today had a less likely chance of occurring.

It's bad enough that the people of this nation are stomping on the laws that were provided for them to abide by. Now comes our one an only President Bush to stomp on our nation’s fourth amendment. Sine the 9/11 tragedy President Bush and his followers have invaded the privacy of thousands due to caution and paranoia. President Bush has bypassed this whole situation by saying that this is a matter of "national security". This bit of information came from an article written by Laurence H. Tribe from the online Boston Globe News.

Another amendment that relates to the use of video surveillance is the ninth amendment. It basically says that the numbering of the Constitution will not be lowered in standard by the people. This relates to video surveillance because what the people see is not only taken into account of what a person is charged for if arrested for something with a n eyewitness because the eyewitness doesn't have to be a person and is not categorized by the person's place in society. The proof can not be judged because it is not a person but a thing. A tape of video surveillance that could have been taken out from anywhere. It could from the video surveillance cameras from the convenience store across the street or the restaurant right next door. The evidence can still be eliminated but not as easily as a person who can be forgotten. The evidence is now a video surveillance tape that can be copied over and over and over again. It can have thousands to millions copies because copies are unlimited when trying your hardest to make them with the right sources.

A civil right is an "enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury". A civil rights law that refers to video surveillance is the right to equality in public places. This right is violated by video surveillance because when stepping out into the public, you are instantly in the eyes of up at least two surveillance devices and as you walk, it is the farther that you walk into views of surveillance devices. These rights can also be violated when uses video surveillance cameras to observe one specific type of person with a specific type of race, religion, age, or any other such difference of discrimination.

There are many questions to be asked when bringing about the subject of video surveillance. These are the most asked questions I would think of when researching video surveillance. When writing these questions I would section them off into four different sections. They would be the independence of surveillance, users of this technology, armies use if this technology, and the views of the society on this subject.

When thinking if the independence of surveillance I would ask ‘Would video surveillance still exist without satellite? Vise versa?’ It is documented that video surveillance will still exist without the technology of satellites and satellites will still exist without video surveillance. For video surveillance without the technology of satellites, my opinion would be the same as the facts but the use of satellite without video surveillance is false to me.

I would also ask ' Which factor out of the two (video surveillance and satellites) is dependent on the other?’ It is documented that neither are dependent on the other more than needed. My opinion is entirely different from the facts because I would say that satellites are dependent on video surveillance because without video surveillance there would only be pinpoints on a screen instead of pictures than can be identified if lost or videos for highly "special" reasons like the government trying to get information from foreign soil leaders.

Under the situation of who uses this technology I would ask 'Who uses this technology?’. It is documented that this source of technology is used by schools, private companies, main companies, stores (convenience stores, shopping stores), the army, the President of the United States, and many other people. There is just too many to name.

I would ask 'Why do law enforcers use this technology?' .It is documented that law enforcers use video surveillance to catch criminals and gather much needed information. An example is if someone robs a bank and the video surveillance camera is on, the cops can use the surveillance tape to pin down the robber.

I would ask 'What connection does law enforcers using video surveillance have to do with the government?’ It is documented that many law enforcement jobs are given through the federal government. My opinion on this matter is that the government basically runs all law enforcement agencies because they are their "sponsors". The government equals politicians and with politicians comes many responsibilities and those responsibilities or "cases" can easily be pushed onto shoulders that burden many "cover-ups" for up coming elections, scandals, or other such things.

I would also ask 'Why would the President of the United States use this technology?’ It is documented that the President is the "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" as stated by the US Constitution. This is stated in Section 2 of Article 2 in the United States Constitution. My opinion is that the President of the United States would use this technology to protect his country and himself. He would use it to protect the US from terrorist and other such kinds of disasters.

In the subject of the army’s use of this technology I would ask 'What situation would prompt the army to use this source of technology?’ It is documented that the army would use this technology when given the command from the President.

I would also ask ' What advantage is video technology to the army?'. It is documented that the army uses this technology for snipers in order to accurately terminate a target. In my own opinion, I would say that the since the President is in charge of the army, then he would use them as his minions to get information or trade information with foreign soil to gain an advantage when going to war, like with what's going on in Iraq presently.

When viewing what the society would think on this matter I would ask 'Is video surveillance a good or bad source of technology?’ It is documented that when asking this question to various people. The opinions of the people seem to lye on all sides. Some people like and love this technology. They use it to protect their homes and business from intruders. On the other hand, some still dislike this technology because they feel that invades their privacy and that they are not alone when in the presence of this technology. My opinion on this matter lies in the middle because yes I do think that video surveillance invades your privacy but it also helps to catch many criminal robbers when they're on their crime wave.

In a letter written to Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter by Attorney General, Alberto R. Gonzales it is stated that on January 10, 2007 a Judge of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court authorizes the government to get information from foreign countries. As a result to this information gathering, there will be a stop to all surveillance transpiring between the two foreign soils. This idea was brought about in 2005 but had just now found approval within the FISA Court. In this letter it is said that the President has the authority to use the FISA to his best advantage to protect our nation. Even though he has currently decided not to use this system too much, it is still his option when needed to use it if deemed necessary.

When walking down one block you would averagely see about five video surveillance cameras on this one block. Even though this technology seems to be **so** popular, it seems to show fewer effects than stated in records. It is said that even though law enforcers boost about the downfall in crime waves since this technology, it doesn't seem to show in numbers. It only seems to increase profit for the manufacturers of this technology because peoples sense of security seem be taking serious downfalls. People are beginning to not feel safe in their own homes and communities.

To anyone looking for advice for researching the pros and cons of technology, I would advice that the best website to go to is SIRS. This website helps you to get a further view of your topic. When looking for information on this topic I would say that you don't have to rely on the date given because the information given is usually the same as from two years ago. The best information will come from you just typing in your subject as a keyword and that will most likely give the most accurate details of your subject.