Levels of passive surveillance have increased recently. For example, many companies monitor their employees’ use of the Internet or of any campaign group activities that may have operational implications. State surveillance now processes huge amounts of information that is collected from a variety of sources to produce profiles of individuals and groups. There are now reportedly more closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras per head of the UK population than any other country in the world. Such a rapid expansion of CCTV surveillance in particular has raised questions about whether this is economically justifiable, whether one’s right to confidentiality is compromised and whether the public are in support of it. In public places it is harder to argue that video surveillance is an invasion of privacy. The sheer presence of CCTV
cameras should deter some criminals when they know that police officers are surveying their actions. However, some criminologists claim that criminal activity is simply diverted elsewhere. CCTV footage may offer unbiased court evidence and so contribute towards keeping many criminals off the streets, but footage needs to be stored securely – even if most of what is filmed does not get to be seen.
