Predictable is Preventable

In a recent issue of “SP & T” NEWS (Security Products & Technology News, V.11 I.10 December 2007), an article by Kenneth Mitchell delves into the concerns over a complaint received by the Ontario Privacy Commissioner by U.K. based “Privacy International (PrivacyINT)”. At the core of PrivacyINT, complaint to the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (OPC) is that “the installation of cameras on the scale proposed by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) fundamentally violates privacy law.”

Mr. Mitchell, an executive director of CANSA (Canadian Security Association), writes that the decision by the Toronto Transit Commission to install private security cameras is on solid legal ground. As defined by the Canadian Government’s, “Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000, c. 5, P-8.6, [Assented to April 13th, 2000], (Reference: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-8.6/text.html)

As owner of a Security consulting company, I understand and appreciate that a convergence of viewpoints between security and privacy, is at times an elusive achievement. The question that begs to be answered here is why would PrivacyINT get involved with such a ludicrous complaint, when they only have to look in their own back yard to see how successful the British Government has implemented the use of CCTV (Closed Circuit Television surveillance cameras) to thwart crime and acts of terrorism.

Does PrivacyINT honestly believe, that without thought, or due diligence, the elected officials of the City of Toronto, have chosen a totalitarian path to implement a system to augment the overall security of the public transit system. We only have to look at past incidents; the London Transit bombings and the Madrid train terrorist attacks to support the need and evidence enough why security outweighs privacy in this ever changing world.

Granted the TTC and OPC are in a different league than regular businesses, however this issue appears endemic of the posturing and disagreement that often occurs whenever such beneficial solutions are on the table. Quite frankly, I fail to see how surveillance operating in a public place can be construed as a privacy issue. This is an issue of safety in a public place, and I stress the phrase “public place”.

Suffice it to say, it seems that business owners will need to look after themselves, and provide their own solutions as perhaps, assistance from larger concerns may not be easily obtainable.

There are four basic reasons for CCTV use:

1. Identification.
2. Protection.
3. Prevention.
4. Observation.

Video Security is becoming more widespread as a means of monitoring locations, entryways, and more. Originally designed to monitor safety concerns, CCTV is continually evolving making it the ideal solution for many types of businesses. Companies use CCTV systems to monitor employees, to trigger alerts in case of fire or motion, and to watch over loading docks. Video security is also used in retail stores to reduce shoplifting and in financial institutions and convenience stores as a deterrent to robbery. Parking lots and garages, remote areas on college/university campuses, and hospitals are also popular locations for video security systems. In public areas it’s used to monitor traffic flow, deter crime and so on.

Again, is this really a privacy issue? It would seem not!

Interested in learning more? Please visit here: jwwinter.com/security_consulting.html

Categories: Privacy, Security
Tags: cansa, cctv, complaint, information, law, opc, Privacy, Security, surveillance, ttc