Are Security Cameras an Invasion of Privacy? Reading Answers

Jun 7, 2024

Are security cameras an invasion of privacy? Reading Answers is an academic reading answers topic. Are security cameras an invasion of privacy? Reading Answers have a total of 13 IELTS questions in total. In the questions you have to choose which section mentions the correct information from the passage by selecting True, False and not Given.

Candidates should read the IELTS Reading passage thoroughly to recognize synonyms, identify keywords, and answer the questions below. IELTS Reading practice papers, which feature topics such as Are security cameras an invasion of privacy? Reading Answers. Candidates can use IELTS reading practice questions and answers to enhance their performance in the reading section.

Check: Get 10 Free IELTS Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Section 1

Are Security Cameras an Invasion of Privacy?

Increasing crime and devastating acts of terrorism have seen a growing need for veillance. Whether it is security cameras or a satellite hovering above the earth, you can be sure that someone is watching you. Law enforcement personnel and security professionals are depending heavily on video surveillance as an important tool in their battle against crime and terrorism. Statistics say that camera surveillance has been an effective tool in discouraging crime. In places like the UK, virtually every street sports security cameras. Though by and large, such systems have the support of the concerns regarding privacy invasion have been raised.

However, the full potential of these so-called 'tools of invasion' was realized when investigators were able to identify the two suspects of bombing at the Boston Marathon er going through video images garnered from security cameras. The images led to mediate apprehension of the Boston bombers. While there is no dispute on the effectiveness of security cameras, the question begs to be asked: Are government bodies crossing legal and ethical boundaries in their quest for security?

While we debate on the issue, a glimpse at the first known use of a 'security camera' is needed. It was in the year 1933 that a gentleman named Norbury first used it in England, Disturbed to find that an intruder was stealing his eggs and chickens, he set up a box camera with cords connected to the door. An image of the intruder was captured within a few days. The intruder Frederick Bamell was found guilty by the judge, who was impressed by Norbury's investigative capabilities. While the benefits of security cameras cannot be denied, where do you draw the line? The presence of cameras may deter crime, but there is no regulating body monitoring those behind the camera. Cameras placed in private places with a malicious objective are a case in point. A couple of months ago, footage captured on the Delhi Metro CCTV found its way into the public domain via YouTube. With such blatant misuse of footage, where does the buck stop? All surveillance cameras cannot be treated the same.

They could be from corporate agencies, law enforcement bodies or even irate neighbors. A matter of harassment must necessarily be differentiated from a matter of public interest. While it is a crime to peep into a neighbor's window, a camera could well be doing the same with the legal provision. Neil Richards, Professor of Law at Washington University, posted an article on the CNN website, articulating his concerns regarding civil liberties and loss of privacy due to ubiquitous cameras set up in urban areas. Referring to suggestions of an increase in surveillance cameras to fight terrorism after the Boston Marathon bombing, Neil Richa, author of The dangers of surveillance, said, 'This would be a mistake.

This would be dangerous to our civil liberties. He not only felt that camera installation and maintenance was expensive and the money could otherwise be used for services like schools, firefighting or security services but also that it did not deter crime. Cameras could only report the crime if they were in the right place at the time of the crime. Boston

Police Commissioner Ed Davis agrees when Professor Richards argues that more police and more cameras would make it a police state. When talking about increasing cameras on the streets, Richards says, 'Such a system could conceivably give the government increased power over us, the capacity that could be used not just to monitor, but in some cases, to potentially blackmail, persuade or discriminant Less privacy ultimately results in less civil liberty. While being under

Constant surveillance does make us feel safer, it's only an illusion. Whether it is the Gestapo or the Stasi, history shows that government surveillance inexorably leads to abuse of power. Unlawful surveillance and blackmail were conducted by the FBI on supposedly 'dangerous' people like Martin Luther King Jr.

There is no doubt that in the current scenario, apprehending criminals and more Importantly, terrorists are a necessity. Thousands of lives can be saved if the perpetrators can be caught in time. As for the question of civil liberties, if you have nothing to hide, being watched over on television or camera or through any other media does not matter.

Section 2

Solution and Explantion

Questions 14-20

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 2 ?

YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer
FALSE if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this.

Security cameras and satellites are evidence that you are under close observation

Answer: YES
Supporting statement:“.........Whether it is security cameras or a satellite hovering above the earth, you can be sure that someone is watching you........”
Keywords: security, someone
Keyword Location: para 1, lines 1-3
Explanation: The author clearly states that both security cameras and satellites are means by which individuals are constantly monitored. It means that people are under close observation.

In the UK, as the crime rate is comparatively high, every street has security cameras.

Answer: NOT GIVEN
Explanation: The passage mentions the extensive presence of security cameras in the UK but does not correlate this with the crime rate being high.

Without security cameras, it was impossible to capture the Boston Marathon bombers

Answer: NOT GIVEN
Explanation: While the passage notes that security cameras were instrumental in identifying the Boston Marathon bombers. It does not claim that capturing them would have been impossible without these cameras.

A digital camera was first used to catch a trespasser who tried to steal eggs and chickens

Answer: NO
Supporting statement:“........He set up a box camera with cords connected to the door..........”
Keywords: box, cords
Keyword Location: para 3, lines 2-3
Explanation: The passage describes the use of a box camera, not a digital camera, to catch the intruder, correcting any misconception about the type of camera used.

Security cameras pose more disadvantages than advantages.

Answer: NOT GIVEN
Explanation: The passage discusses both the advantages and concerns regarding security cameras but does not definitively state that disadvantages outweigh advantages.

It is not offensive to pry into a neighbour's window through the lens

Answer: NO
Supporting statement:“.......While it is a crime to peep into a neighbor’s window, a camera could well be doing the same with the legal provision..........”
Keywords: crime, camera
Keyword Location: para 5, lines 3-4
Explanation: The passage explicitly states that it is a crime to peep into a neighbor’s window, indicating that such behavior is indeed considered offensive and illegal. This directly contradicts the statement.It confirms that prying through a lens into a neighbor’s privacy is offensive.

Surveillance cameras provide a false sense of security.

Answer: YES
Supporting statement:“.......While being under constant surveillance does make us feel safer, it's only an illusion...........”
Keywords: constant, surveillance
Keyword Location: para 6, lines 1-2
Explanation: The author argues that constant surveillance gives an illusion of safety, stating that being under surveillance makes people feel safer, but this feeling is an illusion. This suggests that surveillance cameras may create a false sense of security, which does not necessarily translate into actual safety.

Questions 21-25

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer

What other term is used for security cameras in the passage?

Answer: TOOLS OF INVASION/ SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Supporting statement:“.......The full potential of these so-called ‘tools of invasion’ was realized..........”
Keywords: potential , invasion
Keyword Location: para 2, line 1
Explanation: The author refers to security cameras as "tools of invasion" to highlight their intrusive nature. This term underscores the potential for privacy violations inherent in the use of surveillance technology, emphasizing the concern that these cameras can be seen as invasive tools.

Who was caught by the first use of a camera in England?

Answer: FREDERICK BAMELL/ AN INTRUDER/ THE INTRUDER
Supporting statement:“......The intruder Frederick Bamell was found guilty...........”
Keywords: intruder, Bamell
Keyword Location: para 3, line 3
Explanation: The passage recounts that Frederick Bamell, an intruder, was the first person caught using a camera in England. This historical example illustrates the initial use of camera technology in aiding the capture and prosecution of a criminal, demonstrating the camera's effectiveness.

What does Neil Richards consider a negative social impact of security surveillance?

Answer: LOSS OF PRIVACY
Supporting statement:“.......Neil Richards... articulating his concerns regarding civil liberties and loss of privacy due to ubiquitous cameras..........”
Keywords: articulating, privacy
Keyword Location: para 5, lines 4-5
Explanation: Neil Richards highlights the loss of privacy as a significant negative impact of pervasive security surveillance. He articulates concerns about civil liberties and the pervasive presence of cameras in urban areas, suggesting that the widespread use of surveillance technology can infringe on individual privacy rights.

What could be the maximum help with a camera in specific conditions?

Answer: REPORT THE CRIME
Supporting statement:“.......Cameras could only report the crime if they were in the right place at the time of the crime..........”
Keywords: Cameras, crime
Keyword Location: para 5, lines 8-9
Explanation: The author mentions that cameras can report crimes if they are in the right place at the right time, indicating the limitation of surveillance cameras. This statement underscores the reactive nature of cameras, which can document but not prevent crimes unless positioned precisely where an incident occurs.

What is the state likely to misuse, if handed over through security cameras?

Answer: INCREASED POWER
Supporting statement:“........Such a system could conceivably give the government increased power over us.........”
Keywords: system, power
Keyword Location: para 6, lines 2-3
Explanation: The passage warns that security cameras could grant the government increased power, potentially leading to misuse. The author expresses concern that this power could be used to monitor, blackmail, persuade, or discriminate, highlighting the risks of government overreach and abuse of surveillance technology.

Question 26

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D

In the final paragraph, the purpose of the author is to point out that

Terrorists are more dangerous to society than other criminals
Civil liberties may not be the appropriate pretext to refrain from using security measures
Media houses tend to broadcast everything captured on security cameras
Civil liberties is a bigger problem to deal with.

Answer: B
Supporting statement:“........As for the question of civil liberties, if you have nothing to hide, being watched over on television or camera or through any other media does not matter..........”
Keywords: television, camera
Keyword Location: para 7, lines 1-2
Explanation: The author suggests that concerns about civil liberties should not necessarily prevent the use of security measures, especially if individuals have nothing to hide. This stance is evident in the discussion about balancing the need for security with civil liberties, implying that surveillance measures are justified despite potential privacy concerns.

Read More IELTS Reading Related Samples