CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

=== ON THE META-ETHICAL CHALLENGE PROVIDED BY MY OPPONENT === As with most ethical debates, I am arguing what I believe, and nothing more. Were the resolution to say, "Christians should accept the need for CCTV cameras", or "There is room in Satanic morality for CCTV", then clearly I would be arguing within a certain framework, and my opponent by implication would be as well. The resolution in fact doesn't say anything like this, and so my opponent is free to challenge my argument however he wants. "Assuming what is right or wrong is subjective, we must both debate through the eyes of the same specific mode of morality. " No, we don't. It is equally possible for us to argue _between_ modes of morality. One of many examples of this happening on this very website can be found here: . http://www.debate.org.... Indeed, the entire point of meta-ethics is to debate between alternative ethical theories to see which (if any) are successful. Accordingly, my opponent has two possible avenues of attack in this debate. He can either accept my premises/assumptions and then attack my conclusion ("debating through the same mode of morality") or he can argue that my premises/assumptions themselves are flawed ("debating between modes of morality"). Accordingly, I need not specify which "mode" I'm taking, as the arguments will speak for themselves. === MY SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS === Onwards, then, to my arguments. There are three of them, which I will outline very quickly in syllogistic form - making my argument clear, but without wasting too much time writing out prose on what my opponent may very well concede without problem :-) I'll be happy to expand on premises in later rounds, if and when it becomes clear exactly which ones my opponent will be attacking. 1) Limits of the right to privacy There are two types of people: people who are guilty of a crime, or are suspected of committing a crime; and those who are law-abiding citizens, and recognised as such. a. For guilty people - When you commit a crime, or are suspected of one, the state has a right to infringe your privacy insofar as it helps them investigate this crime. - CCTV cameras, where they are put, provide recorded evidence of any crime committed under its gaze. - Therefore, if someone commits a crime in the vicinity of the cameras, s/he has given up his right to privacy in this regard. b. For law-abiding people - When someone is in public, they recognise that their actions may be seen, and that they may be watched by regular passers-by. - People therefore concede elements of their right to privacy every time they leave their home (or other such private places) and go into the public realm. - When put in public places, CCTV cameras record what takes place in public. - Therefore, such CCTV cameras do not infringe upon the right to privacy. 2) Property rights - Public areas are the property of the state - People have a right to do what they want with their own property, so long as it doesn't infringe unnecessarily upon other people's rights. - For the reasons outlined in 1) above, no such unnecessary infringement happens with the installation of CCTV in public places. - Therefore, the state has a right to place CCTV cameras in public areas. 3) Solving crime - The primary point of CCTV cameras is to record crimes happening, and to facilitate the capture of the guilty after the fact. They may also be used in real time, by the police who wish to track and catch criminals on the run. - The state, being charged with the duty of defining "crime", has the right to better ensure the capture of criminals. - Therefore, the state is justified in setting up CCTV cameras, and in making sure that they catch as many criminals as possible. I may as yet have reason to introduce more substantive arguments as the debate goes on. But so far, for all of these reasons, the resolution is affirmed. I await my opponent's response.