Editing Surveillance (section)

===Support===

Supporters of surveillance systems believe that these tools can help protect society from [[terrorists]] and [[criminals]]. They argue that surveillance can reduce crime by three means: by deterrence, by observation, and by reconstruction. Surveillance can deter by increasing the chance of being caught, and by revealing the [[modus operandi]]. This requires a minimal level of invasiveness.<ref name ="Deviant Behaviour - Socially accepted observation of behaviour for security">[http://www.fp7-tactics.eu/files/documents/Deviant%20Behaviour-Socially%20accepted%20observation%20of%20behaviour%20for%20security.pdf Deviant Behaviour – Socially accepted observation of behaviour for security] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141223104500/http://www.fp7-tactics.eu/files/documents/Deviant%20Behaviour-Socially%20accepted%20observation%20of%20behaviour%20for%20security.pdf |date=December 23, 2014 }}, Jeroen van Rest</ref>

Another method on how surveillance can be used to fight criminal activity is by linking the information stream obtained from them to a recognition system (for instance, a camera system that has its feed run through a facial recognition system). This can for instance auto-recognize fugitives and direct police to their location.

A distinction here has to be made however on the type of surveillance employed. Some people that support video surveillance in city streets may not support indiscriminate telephone taps and vice versa. Besides the types, the way in which this surveillance is done also matters a lot; i.e. indiscriminate telephone taps are supported by much fewer people than say telephone taps done only to people suspected of engaging in illegal activities.

Surveillance can also be used to give human operatives a tactical advantage through improved situational awareness, or through the use of automated processes, i.e. [[video analytics]]. Surveillance can help reconstruct an incident and prove guilt through the availability of footage for forensics experts. Surveillance can also influence subjective security if surveillance resources are visible or if the consequences of surveillance can be felt.

Some of the surveillance systems (such as the camera system that has its feed run through a facial recognition system mentioned above) can also have other uses besides countering criminal activity. For instance, it can help in retrieving runaway children, abducted or missing adults and mentally disabled people. 
Other supporters simply believe that there is nothing that can be done about the loss of privacy, and that people must become accustomed to having no privacy. As [[Sun Microsystems]] CEO [[Scott McNealy]] said: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."<ref name="sun-getoverit">{{cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538|title=Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It'|last=Sprenger|first=Polly|date=January 26, 1999|work=Wired Magazine|access-date=March 20, 2009}}</ref><ref name="bw-getoverit">{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_14/b3623028.htm |title=Privacy |last=Baig |first=Edward |author2=Marcia Stepanek |author3=Neil Gross |date=April 5, 1999 |work=Business Week |access-date=March 20, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081017102602/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_14/b3623028.htm |archive-date=October 17, 2008 |df=mdy }}</ref>

Another common argument is: "[[nothing to hide argument|If you aren't doing something wrong then you don't have anything to fear]]." That is,  one does not have a right to privacy regarding illegal activities, while those following the law suffer no harm from surveillance and so have no standing to object to it. Beyond the heroically self-serving identification of what is wrong with what is illegal, the ethical fly in this ointment is the tacit premise that the individual has no duty to preserve the health of the state—the antithesis of the principle that only the consent of the governed can adequately serve as the moral foundation of a (just) state and warrant the vast gulf between its power (and agency) and that of the individual. <ref>{{cite journal|author=Solove, Daniel|title='I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy|journal=San Diego Law Review|year=2007|volume=44|page=745|ssrn=998565|author-link=Daniel J. Solove}}</ref>