They certainly do. The question of where they go is the most important of all; for most, it’s their pride or their financial security. But they may also tell us something about a society that wants to know who is driving these cameras and which institutions are being watched, from a police perspective.
The technology behind the cameras is also moving — to capture images as people walk, talk and get out of cars.
In many countries, including the United States, cameras are becoming increasingly common; they’ve been in use since the 1960s. Cameras are now being used — in some cases aggressively. In most cases, the technology is intended to make citizens safer by identifying criminal suspects. In other cases, they may be used to make citizens more aware of their privacy rights. Both scenarios rely on what’s called visual surveillance, a practice that, for most people, is just plain old surveillance.
[How the police use surveillance cameras]
The question is, how much do we share? In many countries, especially the United States, police agencies have increasingly used surveillance cameras. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is working behind the scenes on projects like one that the agency said is “the most comprehensive use of surveillance video in the history of the United States,” which has identified 1.5 million people who have “diverted” from social settings, including parks, sidewalks, sidewalks in schools and restaurants, and public transportation.
But if one is looking for something that suggests surveillance, why the camera in the park?
The camera, of course, is a powerful device — that is, unless they’re used in ways they weren’t intended to be used. That’s an unsettling thought, when so far, most people haven’t been asking the right questions.
Here, then, is a look at what the police have done in various parts of the country, and how things might change.
In South Carolina, for example, the camera was used by two South Carolina Highway Patrol officers to investigate a road rage incident.
Police are being encouraged to use the devices because they could allow officers to use more force, with their bodies, in instances where deadly force isn’t necessary.
The officers said they use the device when they “are fearful for [an] officer’s life as the subject pulls away from us and runs away and the officer is forced to respond as well,” according to the news report.