The Instigator
DSM-Mercy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ddelacruz7
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are security cameras an invasion of our privacy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 89415
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

DSM-Mercy

Pro

Are security cameras in an invasion of our privacy? I don't think so. I believe having security cameras on homes and public building is for the safety of those people. They have the right to place cameras to help deter criminals. With the way that world has turned into, its almost necessary to have a camera on someones home and on public streets. The average person is caught on camera 75 times a day. If a person feels as if that is an invasion of there privacy then they should consider moving to a more desolate location.
ddelacruz7

Con

I believe it definitely because the feeling of being watched is invading our privacy without our consent. Security cameras use to only appeared in banks and at high security areas, now they are now entering public places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. I should be free to travel or move around a shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or recorded. Being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and we are losing our freedom because of these devices. Even if we "consider moving" to a more "desolate location" then what makes you think there isn't any cameras there?
Debate Round No. 1
DSM-Mercy

Pro

"High security area" is defined as a special part of a bank with strong doors meaning the vault, that definition should be changed based off of recent history. High security areas consist of the malls, streets, stadiums and transport and anywhere you go. With the number of people in america, everywhere is a high security area. Lets look at the most recent terror attacks that have occurred in the last year. Starting off locally, mall shootings have happened less than 2 miles away from my home, NYPD officers and civilians have been attached by emotionally disturbed individuals. If we look at worldwide scenarios, how about the brussels and paris attacks? We have one man at large, the man everyone refers to as "the man in white" without these cameras we wouldn't have visuals on this terrorist and no leads to be able to track him down. Aside from the criminal acts, lets talk about Amber or Silver Alerts, public cameras allow us to refer back to a possible slighting of a lost or abducted child or a senior citizen. Not all cameras are being watched, they are for monitoring; a digital footprint to help track leads to potential danger to our community.
ddelacruz7

Con

Although it can be argued that security cameras are beneficial to is when it comes to crimes I find this to be false. Even though they have helped in the investigations of serious crimes that occurred around the world I find that they help very little. They provide us with information that sulfur ivory or by passers on the scene could provide us with. I find that they only contribute to big crimes as well. What about us little people? There have been plenty of scenarios when security cameras where around or in areas and not once helped us little people. For one there was a local case where two young men were chased down by three men with guns and had to hide out in a local diner only to find by morning the men in question broke the younger man's vehicle window. When going to police for help the cameras weren't working in some areas and ones that did caught nothing. Another scenario was when a young female diver on the highway suffered an accident cause by the other driver not signaling and driving cautious of other not only hitting her vehicle enduring her life and other but running from the scene as well. Yet there were no cameras to catch this incident where he lives are in danger and at risk. Proving that all the cameras placed for surveillance and safety are useless and pointless because they don't come in handy when needed. They only further my point in being intrusive rather then for safety.
Debate Round No. 2
DSM-Mercy

Pro

All your descriptions are only telling me that we need more cameras placed and we need them to work. Cameras are an unbiased witness testimony. Without them any witness to describe a crime is a weak testimony. People believe that their memories work like a video camera but according to an article written by Scientific American, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. Who is to say that the witnesses to those two crimes are correct? or that the victims or felons are telling the truth? We cant believe them. This results to letting criminals loose in our streets because no one is held liable to their actions. Although, you believe its invading your personal space and freedom. I strongly believe that todays world and the actions of other people around us have caused for this to happen and it comes with living in one of the highest tourist location in the world. Where ever you are publicly is not your private space, other than a restroom, dressing room or your own private property, there is no legal expectation of privacy. In this day and age, everyone has a camera on their person (cell phone, tablet, laptop, and actual cameras)
ddelacruz7

Con

Although I see your point in this debate I still feel as though cameras are an invasion of privacy. I feel as though cameras are mere devices to watch us and our moves rather then be beneficial to us. Though it is true humans as species memories may not always be accurate I find cameras are merely equal to being as unreliable. Cameras caught plenty of crimes such as 9/11 but want did it really help with? Sure we caught the man behind it on camera but that's all. The man managed to escape us countless times without catching him for years. Where were the cameras then ? They caught nothing other then him doing the crime but not help track him through visual surveillance to help catch him. So over all though one might find surveillance cameras beneficial I for one do not. I feel as though it strips us of our freedom to privacy as well as brings/encourages people to be paranoid and have anxiety of constantly being watched. We should stand together to fight for our right to be able to keep somethings to ourselves while living in a society that consistently hides things from us.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Emmarie 1 year ago
Emmarie
I hope the two of you will consider a re-match of this debate, because it is a very important topic in our modern world. I liked that this debate could be read like a conversation, and that you both expressed yourselves as if you were speaking.

There are guidelines to debates that can help you to stay more on target as far as PROVING the Resolution Statement (title of the debate). The title, "Are Security Cameras an Invasion of Our Privacy?" was not the main topic of either of your arguments. I made this mistake in debates too, where it ended in a tie. This debate could have resulted in a win/lose if either of you would have discussed issues of how cameras harm privacy or do not harm privacy rather than how cameras are needed or not needed for solving crime or locating missing persons.

Ddelacruz7's last few sentences of the debate were arguments that pertained to the Resolution of this debate. "I feel as though it strips us of our freedom to privacy as well as brings/encourages people to be paranoid and have anxiety of constantly being watched. We should stand together to fight for our right to be able to keep somethings to ourselves while living in a society that consistently hides things from us," should have been a claim that was discussed more during the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emmarie 1 year ago
Emmarie
DSM-Mercyddelacruz7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd love for ddelacruz to have won this debate, cuz I agree with him whole heatedly. I have to vote for who made more convincing arguments, and that was neither. DSM-mercy stated reasons that security cameras are helpful for our safety, but gave no examples of how they actually lead to solving any crime or finding any lost or missing children or senior citizens. Ddelacruz7 did give examples of how cameras did not solve actual local crimes despite being available, but also cited an instance of an accident where no cameras caught a hit and run driver that threatened the victims life. I realize that his point was that cameras are more invasive than helpful, but citing an example of how not having something recorded is not helpful to his counterclaim and is actually supporting Pros argument that more cameras are what's needed. My RFD is an attempt to help the both of you make arguments that focus on the Title of the debate aka Resolution Statement.