- While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly articulate a right to privacy, it's considered an unenumerated right, implicitly recognized through other provisions of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of individuals to a "zone of privacy" when it struck down an anti-contraception law in Connecticut. In their ruling on "Griswold v. Connecticut," the majority cited four provisions within the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment in concluding that Americans have the right to privacy in their personal lives.
- In their article "CCTV: An Historical Perspective in Retailing," authors Charles A. Sennewald and John H. Christman note that U.S. courts don't recognize CCTV cameras used in public as an infringement on individual privacy, on the grounds that people's actions in public can be viewed by any bystander. The New York Civil Liberties Union notes that unlike bystanders in a public place, modern CCTV cameras are able to focus on and record details as minute as the text on a cell phone screen. The NYCLU also indicates that CCTV technology may be used to monitor people engaged in protected political dissent, as in the case of the NYPD's use of video surveillance to gather information on protestors during the city's 2004 Republican National Convention.
- Sennewald and Christman note that retailers have used CCTV cameras as a security measure since the 1960s, employing them both to deter shoplifters and prevent theft by employees. Courts admit CCTV footage as evidence during proceedings, and these video records can be extremely helpful in securing convictions. Despite the legality of CCTV camera use throughout most of an establishment, they are not permitted in certain areas where they would compromise personal dignity, such as in bathrooms and changing rooms.
- Property owners such as retailers and landlords are often legally responsible for devising and implementing a security plan to protect their patrons and tenants, and neglecting to provide CCTV video surveillance of high-traffic areas could expose a property owner to a lawsuit. However, if a person is assaulted on a property with CCTV surveillance, the owner can be held liable for negligence if security staff assigned to the monitors were sleeping or otherwise inattentive. CCTV systems can also help retailers avoid premises liability damages from individuals. If a person claims injury from slipping on a wet floor, but camera footage reveals he ignored signage indictating that the floor was wet, this evidence can help prevent a judgement against the property's owner.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -