Technology vs. Privacy
(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ...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:
- Identification.
- Protection.
- Prevention.
- 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
In my opinion there’s perhaps a bit of political maneuvering? After all, there’s a fair bit of money involved in a (CCTV) project of this scope. Do I need to connect the dot’s? Just my opinion…
Better late than never…
Three points in response to your blog posting;
1. WRONG PRIVACY ACT! Claims of “solid ground” compliance with the federal “Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000″, or PIPEDA, says *nothing at all* about compliance with the Ontario (Municipal) Freedom of Information and Privacy of Personal Information Act (FIPPA/MFIPPA) - acts over which the Ontario Commissioner has authority (to receive, investigate complaints, issue orders, etc)
2. WRONG MOTIVE: You don’t need to have impure, bad or totalitarian motives to invade privacy. The biggest threats to privacy often come from incremental changes at the margins of information systems by well-meaning bureaucrats/employees in pursuit of other legitimate but non-privacy objectives (let’s save money and save lives!). Mission/function creep means that video cameras put in place for one defined purpose eventually become more numerous, more ubiquitous and used for novel, secondary purposes. Why not add remote control panning and zooming? How long before sound recording is added? What about retaining/archivingg the videos indefinitely for future uses? Could we add facial recognition to the feeds? Why not a public video feed so the public can watch too??
3. VVTC EFFICACY UNPROVEN: I am unaware of any study documenting, in empirical, measurable terms, the security claims of using CCTV in public (or private) spaces. In actual practice, the single most compelling use of CCTV is to preserve evidence in the event of an incident, which may have some deterrent/displacement value. Almost no one actually watches live CCTV feeds as this is too mind-numbingly boring an task for anyone to do credibly beyond 15-20 minutes. SO I take some issue with your four listed reasons for using CCTV.
My $0.02