Camera and Surevillance
Submitted By misskandy
According to Disadvantages-Of-Surveillance-Technology" (2013) website. Technology today is a fundamental part of any successful police agency and as such the impact of leadership upon technology procurement, policies and programs is critical. As we approach 2015, the overall law enforcement effort will be hampered by police leaders who do not understand technology and accelerating change, who do not appreciate the advantages that well managed information technology systems can bring their agency, and who continue to focus resources on Industrial Age methodologies based upon traditional cultural attitudes toward information and information-sharing. We will discuss camera and wiretap surveillance and how it effects law enforcement.
Camera and wiretap surveillance is a method that would support law enforcement to oversee crime and making sure the city is running safely, it would permit law enforcement to watch how the city and people are conducting themselves. According to "Ehowtech" (1999-2013), Camera and wiretap surveillance not only dissuade crime from occurring, but they also help to apprehend criminals that continue to carry out crimes. Day spy cameras are extremely advantageous as many of them can be self-controlled remotely, while others have night vision aptitudes. They can be tremendously small in size and transmit—or record—high-quality images. Disadvantages of using cameras, people will fill that they having their privacy invaded, According to "Disadvantages of Surveillance Technology” (2013). Cameras would be immobile so this would cause the criminal to know exactly where cameras are and they could just avoid being in front of camera, when there is an entity in front of the camera it can cause restriction, not to mention that if the camera is damage it can become useless and a waste of capital money.
Wiretapping has been referred to the interference of a telephone line to eavesdrop on a telephone conversation. As technology has evolved, wiretapping now refers to any type of eavesdropping, whether it involves landline telephones, cellular telephones or voice-over Internet calls. Wiretapping is subject to laws protecting individual privacy and can usually only be carried out by law enforcement personnel after receiving permission from a judge. The "Ehowtech" (1999-2013) website
According to "Ehowtech" (1999-2013), Advantages of wiretapping consist of officer acquiring access to information and not having to make contact with the offender, this technique also reduces risk and harm of officers, because offenders have know idea that they have been wiretap. Disadvantages of wiretapping, Wiretaps violate privacy when they are too broad or when they are done without the consent of a judge. In some cases, police investigations surpass the boundaries of the Constitution and infringe on the rights of people to privacy in their telephone communications. In addition to that wiretapping law enforcement can tap into conversations that have nothing to do with illegal activity, information not related to the investigation. This can lead to time wasted as well as taxpayer’s money.
Since the invention of the microphone, the telephone, and dictograph recorder, it has been possible to “eavesdrop” with much greater secrecy and expediency. Back in 1928 in the Olmstead this devices were challenged in Court due to convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law. The Court ruled in a five- to- four vote that wiretapping was not within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Taft, wrote the opinion of the Court, relied on two lines of argument for it conclusion. First, the Amendment was designed to protect one’s property interest in his premises, since there was no search as long as there was no physical trespass on the premises owned or controlled by the defendant. Secondly all evidence obtained had been secured by hearing, and the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a seizure, for the Amendment referred only to seizure of tangible items. The violation of state law did not render the evidence excludible, since the exclusionary rule only operated on evidence seized in violation of the Constitution (FindLaw). There has been laws enacted by Congress like the Entitled Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, H.R. 3694 this law rested much of its authority on Executive Order 12333 that President Reagan established in 1981. It gave the Attorney General the authority to authorize wiretaps on an “emergency basis” without the approval of a judge. The judge only had to be notified of the intention and the tap is allowed for 48 hours without judicial permission (The Winds).