The Instigator
Mansh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jacste
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should cameras on drones watch all public spaces to prevent crime or is that a violation of privacy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2018 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,431 times Debate No: 107569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Mansh

Pro

Cameras on drones watch all public spaces to prevent crime and various other activities. And some of the people I met this past week said it's also a violation of privacy. What do you think?
Jacste

Con

Drones and cameras watching the public 24/7 is an extreme violation of privacy. It would create uproar in communities and lead to violence(which is exactly what the idea is supposed to put and end to). People won't be able to deal with the fact that their every movement is being watched. Nobody would be able to act normal in public knowing that people are watching them. This would destroy society as we know it and no good will be done.

This would also mean that police wouldn't need a warrant to watch your movements which is a clear violation of the law.

These forms of surveillance can be hacked meaning that extremely important information can fall into the wrong hands. For example murderers can use these forms of sur to track down their victims.
Debate Round No. 1
Mansh

Pro

Surveillance cameras are not all bad, they also improve our public safety. If an individual knows that there is a surveillance camera or a drone roaming around in a certain area, they may be less willing to commit a crime near the location for the fear of being caught.
Drones on the other hand are helping us in many different ways like in planting trees, Disaster and humanitarian relief. The speed and precision of drones make them a good tool for planting trees. While a farmer or individual working at a frantic pace may be able to plant several thousand seedlings a day, a drone can do ten times that amount. Organization like UNICEF are investigating ways that drones can be used in humanitarian response. Their relatively low cost, ability to fly high and capture high-quality images can be very effective in chaotic situations. Plus, whenever there's a big event or an open meeting, drones are used either to capture the whole moment or for the security reasons. I think it's not a violation, it's just a new lifestyle. Before this, things happened and there's no proof. Nowadays, we can prove it. With the help of these cameras.
Jacste

Con

Please stick to the topic at hand and not ramble on about how drones are very efficient at doing various jobs to replace human labour... this is completely irrelevant

For part 1 of my 2nd argument I am going to talk about financial issues facing the idea of constant surveillance. To distribute enough cameras to cover the area of the world would cost astronomical amounts. Instead of spending all this money and creating so many issues why not use money to make advances in forensics so that criminals can't get away with their crimes. Poverty-stricken countries would never be able to afford this technology and in these countries is where crime is most common.

Secondly, criminals will cover their faces to avoid identification. They'll also be more likely to commit their crimes within buildings where they can't be spotted.
Debate Round No. 2
Mansh

Pro

"Please stick to the topic at hand and not ramble on about how drones are very efficient at doing various jobs to replace human labour", Isn't that why we are debating. The lines I wrote explains how cameras are helpful. This is not irrelevant, it's just the facts that you don't want to believe and that's why you're calling it irrelevant.
You're talking about advances in forensics. Think about it, If cameras aren't helping catching the enemy. From where there is a camera, criminals don't go away with their crimes instead they get caught in the camera. Their footage helps in observing their behaving and later in catching them at the right time in the right moment.

I'm gonna remind you that we are talking about violation of cameras not related to politics. Other countries are also helping poverty-stricken countries in one way or another, they are not like totally alone. Countries where people die due to hunger, well drones are there to help them provide the food and record the environment. In dangerous places, where someone can get attacked, that where the drones are used.

And for your last two lines, Isn't that why government is trying to cover the area as far as possible with the help of cameras so that all the crimes can be spotted at once. Criminals can hide their faces but they can be tracked with the help of, of course camera. And here you're saying money shouldn't be spending in these things.

Get your facts right.
Jacste

Con

If the debate was about the ways in which drones benefit the population then I'd accept your point, but it isn't. It is about drones surveying the population.

In conclusion the public won't react well to this extreme invasion of privacy. Believe it or not, most people don't enjoy being watched 24/7. Financially it would be nearly impossible to buy enough drones to cover the face of the world. Criminals would avoid identification(when have cameras stopped them before)and would commit crimes in places they know they aren't being watched. You didn't state if this would involve politics so I will repeat what I said... poverty-stricken countries have the most criminal activity and would need these forms of technology the most, but wouldn't be able to afford them. If these drones are everywhere then an enemy country could easily slip in a drone without being noticed to create immense devastation. Why would you spend so much money and risk so much to catch a couple of criminals who would be caught if forensics were more advanced. Even the criminals themselves could use drones whilst sitting on their living room sofas. I just don't get why you would implement these drones knowing the amount of risks they pose. They won't make much of a difference anyway and would leave countries in debt.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.