Humanprotection systems are any devices or systems that are meant toprotect humans from harm of any form including fire, fall, burglary,or any other harm that may occur to humans. Human protection systemsinclude the use of devices like fire protection systems, securitysurveillance cameras and visual assessment systems among other(Iyengar, 2014).
Inan effort to ensure public safety, the police and law enforcers ingeneral have turned to the use of human protection systems. Thesesystems being operated by humans have raised concerned in terms ofprivacy. Opponents of these systems argue that, they violate theprivacy of a person as guaranteed by the constitution. As such, therecontinues to be a thin line between safety and privacy.
Ina recent case for example involving a gentleman by the name JamesScarola, the paradox is clearly highlighted. Scarola called thepolice to report an attack of a woman. One of the police officerswho were assigned to save the day wore body camera on his uniform. Itturned out that Scarola was charged with attempted murder through thefootage that the police took with the body camera. In defense,Scarola argued that the manner in which the police used the bodycamera infringed his anticipation of privacy. This is a commonchallenge that human protection systems continues to face. Dependingon who is affected and who is not affected, use of human protectionsystems will remain controversial unless the law clearly defines thetwo issues of public safety and privacy (Nakashima,Babaguchi & Fan, 2012).However, the balance between safety and privacy may never beachieved.
Iyengar,V. (2014). US v. Jones: Inadequate to Promote Privacy for Citizensand Efficiency for Law Enforcement. Tex. J. on CL & CR, 19,335-335.
Nakashima,Y., Babaguchi, N., & Fan, J. (2012). Intended human objectdetection for automatically protecting privacy in mobile videosurveillance. Multimediasystems,18(2),157-173.