Get Expert Advice 
Flying back from San Francisco the day after Christmas, I was struck during a brief layover in Dallas by the January 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics. Their cover story, "New High Tech Cameras are Watching You, " by James Vlahos, compares large-scale surveillance systems to the Panopticon, a prision designed in the 1700s that would allow prisoners to be seen, at all times, whether they realized it or not. During my short redeye I intently read the article, and I feel that Vlahos echoes the (admittedly valid) concerns of many privacy advocates: with cameras everywhere, how can we ever truly have privacy?
To an extent the concerns are warranted, and I think most people can definitely understand the motivating factors behind them. If, for instance, I'm having dinner with a friend, chances are I don't want someone videotaping the whole thing. At the same time, when I'm checking out at the grocery store, what businiess is it of Breaux Mart's what kind of pickles I buy? If I go for a run, I don't want my neighbor to watch me go by over and over again by replaying the footage from his front door cam. After all, a person has a right to privacy.
At the same time, though, I'm forced to consider the perspective of the business owner or the homeowner who has those cameras installed. Sure, my pickles are my business, but management needs to know what to order from their distributors every month, and at the same time they need to make sure I'm paying for what I'm leaving with. Every time a cashier gives a friend a discount, every time someone slips a candy bar or a tube of chapstick in their pocket, that's not just money lost, but time lost in trying to track down what happened. Having a few cameras up can help him avoid those headaches. If a neighbor catches me on the cameras on his home, it may bug me a bit, but if his wife or daughter is being stalked and the cameras are watching for suspicious cars, I'm sure I'll get over it.
There's no getting around that everyone has a right to privacy. But the fact is that everyone also has an equally valid right to protect themselves from theft or personal harm. Cameras help to this end, and (speaking personally) of all the clients I've helped either online or over the phone, I've never been asked to design a system that I felt would unnecessarily violate someone else's privacy. I'm not saying I've never designed one, I'm saying I've never even been asked to design one, and I'm a guy who does nothing but help people with their surveillance systems, 40+ hours a week. The vast majority of systems that are up now are used for protection of life and property, the same kind of protection I think most people value just as much as privacy. To be fair, Vlahos does make this allowance in his article, and his ultimate conclusion, that it is up to those that design and use the systems to only use the systems' power when it's reasonable and needed, is one I agree with.
I would take it a step further, though: just becuase one has a power in no way means one must use that power, and in my experience there are far, far more honest surveillance system owners and operators than dishonest ones. We can have security, we can have privacy, but we also need to have faith in each other's honesty and in everyone's ability to respect the rights of everyone else.
And maybe I'm just lucky, but most people I know are pretty honest and respectful.
