In many cities the use of video cameras in public places in being increased in order to reduce crime, but some people believe that these measures restrict our individual freedom. Do the benefits of increased security outweigh the drawbacks?

Experts throughout the developed and developing world have debated whether

video

surveillance

is an effective and ethical tool for maintaining law and order. Some believe it is a threat to their

privacy

, but I strongly disagree. In

this

essay I will discuss both sides using examples from The University of Toronto and The Government of India to demonstrate points and prove arguments. On the one hand, there is ample of evidence that electronic

surveillance

reduces the number of thefts in cities. The central reason behind

this

is two fold,

firstly

video

cameras act as a deterrent and force criminals to avoid places with electronic

surveillance

,

secondly

videography of areas helps in catching and convicting the thieves.

For example

an empirical study conducted by the University of Toronto suggests that electronic

surveillance

reduces the crime rate by 80% in public areas.

Therefore it

Accept comma addition

Therefore, it

is conclusively clear that the use of

video

cameras reduces crimes.

On the other hand

,

although

there is a case for

privacy

breach and hacking. Possibility of

privacy

invasion and hacking cannot be understated, but by introducing strong laws and investing in ethical hacking these security issues can be addressed.

For example

The Indian government added cyber security laws in Indian Penal Court to curb the hacking and breach of

privacy

. With stricter laws and technological enhancement it is possible to state beyond doubt that these concerns will be resolved. In conclusion, from the arguments and examples given I firmly believe that having

video

camera/electronic

surveillance

in an area reduces crimes without seriously restricting individual freedom.