Is Public Video Surveillance a Right of Government? Lauren Menard Grand Canyon University United States laurenannmenard@gmail.com Abstract: From supermarkets to schools and movie theatres to hospitals— we are being watched. The current study explored American opinion on the right of government to keep people under public video surveillance in the interest of public security with 2016 General Social Survey data. Frequency cross-tabulations and logistic regressions were employed. Sixty-five percent of Americans believed government held the right of public video surveillance, with 26% believing it a definite right and 39% believing it probably a right. Significant associations were revealed for educational attainment and safety of neighborhood. Highest proportions believing in government’s right of public videotaping were for bachelor and graduate degree (72%). Regression analysis confirmed associations. Americans with a bachelor or graduate degree level of education were 52% more likely to agree government had a right to keep individuals under video surveillance in public places. Individuals who lived in very safe neighborhoods were 33% more likely than those living in other neighborhoods to believe in government’s right to videotape in public. Introduction The prevalence and growth of CCTV are underestimated, and Americans are being watched in public places more now than ever before and more than they presume (Karas, 2016; Reolink, 2019). The use of installed security cameras in North American was estimated to increase from 33 million in 2012 to approximately 62 million by 2016 (Goldstein, 2019). According to a 2016 Google survey, most Americans believed they are captured on video four or fewer times a day when they are more likely to be recorded over fifty times daily (Karas, 2016). It is easy to overlook cameras “like your neighbor's outdoor surveillance, the traffic cameras, hidden lenses in the office elevator, street monitoring areas” (Reolink, 2019, para. 5) as Americans go about living their busy lives. The expectation for privacy is lower in public (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007), and students, shoppers, patients, etc. are not asked their permission to be videotaped. Constant public video surveillance can paint whole pictures of the private lives of innocent citizens. Li (2019) observed, “When you are walking down the street, driving in your car, or hanging out with boyfriends and girlfriends, you will be monitored with cameras” (para 8). Intrusive personal narratives emerge when the routine behaviors of citizens in a free society are captured on a daily basis, such as “going to a doctor, an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, an HIV-Aids or abortion clinic, and displays of affection” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007, p. 10). Americans may change behaviors simply because they are being watched, and this can have a chilling effect on civic engagement. On a campus setting, surveillance cameras alter “the educational environment (e.g., freedom of movement) and threaten educational values (e.g., freedom of inquiry)” (Liedka, Meehan, & Lauer , 2016, para.19). The potential for abuse and exploitation is another concern. Policies and guidelines have not kept pace with the prevalence of CCTV. A position of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2019) is that public video surveillance is an intrusive technology that “carries very real dangers of abuse and mission creep” (para.19). There is a need to review and develop oversight aimed at protecting Americans from the abusive aspects of videotaping technologies (Li, 2019; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007). Closed-circuit television is undeniably a global, commonplace crime-fighting tool, but studies have reached different conclusions on the effectiveness of CCTV to prevent crime (Liedka, Meehan, & Lauer, 2016; Piza, 2016; Piza, Welsh, Farrington, & Thomas, 2019; Welsh & Farmington, 2008). Liedka, Meehan, and Lauer (2016) found CCTV did not impact crime. They reported crime was more dependent on other factors (e.g., location, institutional control, student- body demographics) and cautioned against embracing panacea technology fixes and an unexamined motto of security above privacy (Liedka, Meehan, & Lauer, 2016). Piza (2016) found CCTV was a deterrent for auto theft. A Panel on