The dilemma: privacy or justice

Each new controversy about Britain's growing "surveillance society" highlights a continuing dilemma: the need to find a balance between the potential benefits of cameras and the equally important requirement of protecting personal privacy.

On one side of the equation is the success achieved by cameras in helping to bring criminals to justice. The most high-profile cases include the conviction of the five men who tried to carry out the 21/7 London Tube and bus bomb attacks.

Another illustration of the role that CCTV footage can play came this month, when a gang of four 18-year-olds, who carried out a vicious "steaming" attack on a train in south-east London, were convicted after being caught on camera.

With courts increasingly reluctant to accept the verbal testimony of police or council officials without corroborating evidence, cameras can provide legally important proof of anti-social activity.

Grassroots campaigns, too, frequently show support for the installation of cameras in local trouble spots. But there are serious practical and philosophical objections to their increasing role.

To begin with, their effectiveness is often undermined by a lack of maintenance, the failure to preserve footage, and the poor quality of many of the images. The multi-million cost of the technology and its upkeep is also an important consideration, with critics arguing that the money could often be better spent on police officers.

More fundamentally, perhaps, there is the impact upon personal privacy that results from the increasing extent to which each citizen's movements are now being caught on film - something which many regard as fundamentally at odds with traditional British freedoms.

Supporters of cameras can point to legal safeguards - and cite the argument that those who have done nothing wrong have little to fear - but for a significant number of others, including the law-abiding, the feeling remains that too great a sacrifice is being made.