Privacy in our society is clearly diminishing: We carry devices everywhere we go so that people can reach us, the credit cards we use let any corporation view our purchases, and the Internet has allowed an unprecedented level of information to be publicly available. While this trend can be troubling, simple-minded reactions are not warranted.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened in the Cambridge City Council on Wednesday when, following protests from many fearful and disgruntled citizens, the body voted to keep surveillance cameras already installed in the city turned off, citing their possible contribution to the erosion of civil liberties.

This move by the council was an overreaction in light of the surveillance program’s scope, purpose, and prior history. Funded by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, a mere eight cameras were installed around Cambridge in 2008 to aid firefighters and other evacuation personnel in the event of an emergency. For a sizeable community like Cambridge, the cameras’ potential to be life-saving in dire circumstances greatly outweighs their minimal impact on privacy.

Most of those in opposition to the use of these cameras at the city council meeting did not have a problem with the standard function of the cameras in emergency situations but were more concerned about the possibility of exploitation. But as much as these cameras may conjure up images of an Orwellian nightmare with the government watching our every move, they add no more cause for alarm than cameras installed on highways to monitor speed limits or in stores to monitor shoplifting. Boston has installed over 100 similar cameras already and has seen no problem in surveillance-related abuse.

While the installation process was not particularly transparent, with most of it taking place without the involvement of the Cambridge City Council, disallowing these cameras is unnecessary, rash, and wasteful. Like any newly instituted system, the cameras should be allowed a trial period with evaluation and feedback. Just as nearby Brookline agreed to activate the cameras and use them on a trial basis, Cambridge should observe the impact of cameras before making its decision.

It is a city’s obligation to protect and assist its residents in a time of emergency, and blocking a possible rescue due to unfounded fears of the government being able to view a public street shows little perspective. Eight cameras will not mark the end of our First Amendment rights. Hopefully Cambridge residents will not have to wait for an accident to ensue for us to learn this.