Based on Epistomological research- Are law enforcement cameras an Research Paper

Based on Epistomological - Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy - Research Paper Example This paper aims to show that the use of law enforcement cameras is an invasion of privacy, a fact that should be taken into consideration by legislators and policy makers internationally. Academic literature published on this issue is used for supporting the above argument. At the same time, reports published by organizations in common law countries, i.e. UK, USA and Canada, are presented so that any conclusion is fully justified. The legal implications of law enforcement cameras have been extensively explored in the academic literature. A series of studies have been chosen for supporting this paper’s thesis that the use of law enforcement cameras should be considered as an invasion of privacy. Froomkin (2000) explains that ‘Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras and video recorders are broadly used for monitoring public spaces’ (Froomkin 1577). Reference is made to these cameras’ expansion in UK as a result of the country’s need to secure the safe ty of its citizen by IRA’s terrorist attacks (Froomkin 1577). ... regard to the existing privacy laws; b) the First Amendment that refers to ‘the freedom of association’ (Froomkin 1506) can be used for setting borders to the expansion of these cameras in public spaces. Referring specifically to the English law of privacy, Lord Walker (2010) notes that ‘the tort of invasion of privacy in UK is rather recent’ (Walker 1); in fact, the initial reference to the violation of privacy, as a tort, in the English courts can be identified in the case ‘Douglas v Hello in 2000’ (Walker 2). The above decision reflects the alignment of the British legislation, especially of the Human Rights Act of 1998, with the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ (Walker 2), where the right of each individual ‘to respect for his private and family life’ (article 8) is clearly set. At the next level, the Human Rights Act of 1998 notes that it is not allowed to public authorities to proceed to initiatives that viol ate the right of individuals to privacy, as this right is secured by the European Convention (Walker 2). It is made clear though that the terms of the Convention for privacy may be violated if it is not possible for public authorities to act in a different way (Walker 2). According to the above, the use of law enforcement cameras can be characterized as a violation to the Convention’s orders because of the following: the public authorities may use different tools for controlling public spaces; the use of security guards could be a potential alternative for protecting public spaces without violating the right to privacy. Taylor (2002) also claims that the use of CCTV cameras can be considered as opposed to the article 8 of the European Convention; it is suggested that the use of these cameras is appropriately regulated so that the