Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 135 The GAO report speaks directly to the subject of the effectivity of CCTV networks in the nation’s capital. The report admits that “Measuring CCTV effectiveness is difficult…because it is often used in tandem with other law enforcement tools” (pg. 31), but also explains that CCTV networks remain an important part of the securitization process. Furthermore, speaking to the existence of CCTV networks in major cities throughout the country, the official government report also found that the installation of CCTV networks increases the crime rate, but that “increased crime rates are not bad because it may mean more crimes are being reported that had previously gone undetected” (pg. 30). Similarly, Piza, Gilchrist, Caplan, Kennedy, and O'Hara defended government spending on CCTV network installation, finding that the “direct costs of the intervention inputs were completely offset by the benefits generated by the crime reduction” (pg. 420). Put simply, the utilization of CCTV networks by government agencies leads to a greater ability to monitor and react to criminal and terrorist activity, a crucial and effective process within the larger goal of protecting economic centers such as Washington, D.C. and New York City. Overall, the U.S. government operates CCTV networks totaling over 30 million (BBC, 2017) individual cameras, which means that there is approximately one camera for every twelve citizens in the USA. Public Reaction It is this effectiveness that causes controversy among constituent citizens of the USA. As an indirect democracy, the rights of the citizens of the USA are protected under the Federal Constitution and its amendments, and the people elect officials to the various levels of government and therefore have a means of influencing public policy. Enumerated within that Constitution is the Bill of Rights, a series of amendments that protect the rights to free speech and to privacy in the First and Fourth Amendments respectively. As such, citizens commonly voice opposition (as protected under the First Amendment) to increased CCTV networks and government surveillance, citing the Fourth Amendment and claiming that such comprehensive government monitoring violates the individual’s right to privacy. CCTV surveillance has not necessarily brought about the climax of this debate, as the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court Case Katz v. United States demonstrated. The court found that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable government search and seizure only applied to areas wherein an individual citizen could claim a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and as such state surveillance has been allowed to continue in the USA because urban centers and open public areas are difficult to classify as private areas. Despite the continuing debate on the subject, many find themselves in support of government surveillance. Scholars such as Norris and Armstrong believe that “technologies of mass surveillance can be harnessed to encourage participation rather than exclusion, strengthen personhood rather than diminish it” (pg. 230), defending the idea that state surveillance is practiced in order to protect individuality, to make safe society so that individuals may live to their fullest potential. The sentiment of total trust in the federal government on behalf of the constituent citizens is not strong in the USA, but when put to the test most citizens would most likely favor security over complete invisibility. This idea is demonstrated by Sousa and Madensen’s study of urban reaction to recent CCTV installations, wherein they found that many people actually felt safer knowing that law enforcement officials had urban areas under surveillance. An important point to note on this subject is the fact that however the majority of the population orients itself in favor of or against the proliferation of government-operated CCTV networks, a substantial decline in the use of those networks could occur. The USA is rated in the 86th percentile for individual freedom (including civic rights and freedom of opportunity) by the Freedom House publishers, indicating that there is always the possibility of reversing the proliferation of government-operated CCTV networks in the USA. However, given the above discussion on security