In many cities the use of video cameras in public places is 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?

It is true that

video

surveillance has become commonplace in many cities in recent years.

While

I understand that critics may see

this

as an invasion of privacy, I believe that the merits do outweigh the demerits. There are two main reasons why people might disapprove of the use of

cameras

in public places. The first objection is that

cameras

invade our privacy, in that sense we are constantly being watched by the authorities or by private security firms.

In addition

, many people find that intrusion and feel that the recording of their movements is a form of state control that curtails their individual freedom. The second argument against the proliferation of CCTV

cameras

is that they are being used as an alternative to police officers patrolling the streets. If

this

is indeed happening

then

it is unlikely that members of the public will feel safe. In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I believe that the utility of

video

cameras

to monitor public areas is a positive measure. The key objective of

video

surveillance is to deter criminals and to intervene in crime. As a salient example, petty criminals like shoplifters and pickpockets are less likely to operate in parts of cities where they know that they are being monitored. At the same time, when crimes are committed, the police can use

video

evidence to catch and prosecute offenders.

Hence

, in my view,

video

cameras

offer valuable support to police officers, and they make cities safer for inhabitants, workers and visitors alike. As a way of conclusion, as far as I am concerned, we gain more than we lose from the enhanced security that CCTV

cameras

bring to our lives.