Are Traffic Cameras an Invasion of Privacy Essay

Are Traffic Cameras an Invasion of Privacy - Essay ExampleDiscussion Usually, the traffic cameras evoke detect an over-speeding car, thereby, enabling the government to take immediate action. For example, in Arizona, the traffic cameras led to the arrest of many law breakers, with 650, 000 tickets given to them, leading to a exquisitely of $37 million imposed for the offence (Morse, 2010). Actually, it is not convincing to argue that the traffic cameras invade the peoples privateness if they commit traffic offences persistently. at that place are many road accidents resulting from reckless driving such as over-speeding, overlapping among other traffic offences (Friedman, 2007). Therefore, all measures to curb the incidences should not be toughened as an infringement of ones privacy. As a result of limited number of police officers to apprehend the offenders, there is need for technological use that could be used in tracking the offenders on a 24hours basis (Washington Post, 2002 ). This enhances the vigilance along the major highways in the country and boost the safety some(prenominal) drivers and pedestrians. On the question of privacy, many judges and people agree that there should not be any issue of privacy in a exoteric place (Hankin, 2008). Indeed, the people should not raise privacy concerns when they are out of their kinspersons or in a private office. According to Morse, there are places to be considered as private, including the toilet, bathroom, a persons own compound, private telephone, personal computer, gym, and a private office (Morse, 2011). For that matter, all actions outside those private domains can be subjected to private scrutiny. In addition, he acknowledges that no law prohibits a driver being observed while on the road (Morse, 2011). Similarly, recording an offence that a driver has committed along the highway does not breach the local and international law. Furthermore, driving is strictly regulated for safety purposes (Morse, 2 011). Therefore, those who complain of interference with their privacy misinterpret the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution. The Amendments stress on the need for home safety, thereby, indicating that a doubtless technology can threaten personal privacy and home safety (Morse, 2011). However, this provision should not be misused and taken as a defense for committing crime in the public sphere. When one over-speeds and overlaps on the highway, he/she has to bear the responsibility for the crime, without pointing an accusing finger at the police or the application of technology (Washington Post, 2002). Ideally, the perception that one is being watched might result to decency in public. The person becomes assured that once the camera has captured his/her bad behavior in public, it would not be easy to escape justice (Soda Head News, 2011). For example, if ones private car was captured overlapping on the road and he/she was in the car, there would be no defense for the crime when me ntioned before the law court. Truly, this seems to be a better solution to reduce and subsequently eradicate highway crime and improve on the overall safety of all road users. Fundamentally, induction traffic cameras on public places for surveillance is not a crime and does not infringe on the privacy of a person (Friedman, 2007). For example, if