Privacy Project Home API-PNR | Cyber Snooping | National ID Cards Spouse In The House | Strip Searches | Video Surveillance Video Surveillance in Public Places Should government or the police be able to use video surveillance in public places? It has been argued that the use of such surveillance helps deter crime, but many privacy activists argue that, even in public places, this practice infringes on the right to privacy. In Ontario, city or police officials have deployed cameras in London, Thessalon, Peterborough, Sudbury, and West Nipissing. In other cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Yellow Knife, police services have proposed various places and uses for public video surveillance. In Vancouver, the police services have suggested as many as 23 cameras be placed throughout the downtown area. In addition, the Vancouver police proposed adding two more mobile cameras that would address the possibility that the crime may move away from the stationary cameras. This situation is not uncommon and similar to a proposal made by the RCMP in another part of British Columbia. A Real Life Example Kelowna, British Columbia In late 2000, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police installed video surveillance cameras in downtown Kelowna, British Columbia. According to the police, the cameras would help deter prostitution, drug dealing, and violence that had reportedly plagued the area. In June 2002, the former Federal Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, filed a lawsuit alleging that the RCMP’s use of video surveillance equipment violated the law. Mr. Radwanski argued that this use of video surveillance violated several sections of the Charter as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a state party. Some Kelowna citizens were unhappy with the Commissioner’s position. Residents felt that the cameras had in fact helped to deter the crime problems. According to the CBC, one citizen stated that “this protects my children, or ensures, or keeps the drug people moving away because they don’t want to be on camera.” Others supported the Privacy Commissioner’s statement that the ability to move freely without having cameras watching every move was important. Some felt that government recording public spaces would fundamentally change society. However, it appears that a court will not hear these allegations. In March 2003, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that Radwanski did not have the legal authority, or standing, to bring the case. According to the court, the Privacy Act specifically set out the functions of the Privacy Commissioner and these did not include bringing legal challenges such as this. The court concluded that the Commissioner had authority to receive complaints, to investigate these complaints, and even to make recommendations based on these investigations. The Commissioner could also intervene in lawsuits. However, this did not mean that the Commissioner had the authority to bring a case in his own right. In July 2003, the office of the Privacy Commissioner withdrew its appeal of the decision (http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/ma_am/ma_030704_e.asp) The issue of when and where to use video surveillance remains controversial in Canada. Questions abound about who can use video surveillance, who makes the critical decisions, who gets to see the images, and what is done with the images. The Debate Arguments from Different Sides Law enforcement officials claim that the use of video surveillance equipment in public places will help to deter crime. Criminals will not commit crimes if they know they are going to be video taped. However, there is conflicting evidence about whether or not the cameras really do deter crime. The Winnipeg police have quoted statistics from some U.S. cities that claim significant reductions in crime in the areas monitored by the cameras. On the other hand, some people argue those numbers are deceiving, and that the crime has not decreased, but has moved further underground or to a new location. Some people argue that whether or not cameras actually work, they make people feel safer and everyone wants to feel safe. It is often stated that only people with something to hide would be opposed to video cameras. However, civil libertarians dispute that assertion. They claim that that argument confuses the reason for the opposition. There may be things that are perfectly legal, but people do not want advertised, such as going to a drug treatment centre, a psychiatrist’s office, a weight loss clinic, or marriage counselling. Another argument often put forward is that the cameras are going to be used in public spaces, where there is little expectation of privacy, so why should anyone be upset about a camera? People walking down the street can see you, so what is the difference between that and a camera seeing you? Civil libertarians have argued that there is, in fact, a difference. When people walk down a street, they can see the other people watching them. However, with a video camera, there is an asymmetry of power, which is magnified when the “looker” is a government official or a police officer. Alan Borovoy, General Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association contends that “citizens in a free country should have a presumptive right to get lost. We should be able to wander around without government keeping tabs on us.” While acknowledging that such surveillance might be acceptable under some circumstances, Mr. Borovoy argued that a responsible political authority should make such decisions. In addition, there is a concern about what happens to the recorded images: are they discarded, taped over, or kept for future uses? The debate about the use of video surveillance equipment is complex and very much alive at the moment. Must we choose between having surveillance everywhere or nowhere? Are there overriding arguments that make video surveillance acceptable in some places, but not in others? What about a darkened bus stop or a park at night? Would it make a difference if someone other than the police made the decisions about when and where to conduct such surveillance? As stated above, Alan Borovoy has argued that elected politicians accountable to the public should make such decisions with full public participation. Privacy Project Home API-PNR | Cyber Snooping | National ID Cards Spouse In The House | Strip Searches | Video Surveillance