There are certain issues that need to be discussed: a) the actual power of individuals ‘to protect themselves against the potential sale of their private data is quite limited’ (Froomkin 1502). this problem is mostly related to the unawareness of people in regard to the existing privacy laws. b) the First Amendment that refers to ‘the freedom of association’ (Froomkin 1506) can be used for setting borders to the expansion of these cameras in public spaces.

Referring specifically to the English law of privacy, Lord Walker (2010) notes that ‘the tort of invasion of privacy in the UK is rather recent’ (Walker 1). in fact, the initial reference to the violation of privacy, as a tort, in the English courts can be identified in the case ‘Douglas v Hello in 2000’ (Walker 2). The above decision reflects the alignment of the British legislation, especially of the Human Rights Act of 1998, with the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ (Walker 2), where the right of each individual ‘to respect for his private and family life’ (article 8) is clearly set. At the next level, the Human Rights Act of 1998 notes that it is not allowed for public authorities to proceed to initiatives that violate the right of individuals to privacy, as this right is secured by the European Convention (Walker 2). It is made clear though that the terms of the Convention for privacy may be violated if it is not possible for public authorities to act in a different way (Walker 2). According to the above, the use of law enforcement cameras can be characterized as a violation of the Convention’s orders because of the following: the public authorities may use different tools for controlling public spaces. the use of security guards could be a potential alternative for protecting public spaces without violating the right to privacy. Taylor (2002) also claims that the use of CCTV cameras can be considered as opposed to article 8 of the European Convention.