Surveillance cameras - normalized by Olympic experience?
The article linked above describes a scenario in which cameras - justified and paid for during the preparation for the Olympics - become "normalized" in our society (as they have been in other cities) and then stick around after the games. I think this is a mistake because of the civil liberties implications. Not the usual "privacy" concerns (which are valid, but often overstated - you are on the street, after all), but the larger democratic implications.
I think we underestimate the "chilling" effect of surveillance cameras (people who might think twice about protesting, for example) and overestimate their effectiveness in crime prevention (TONS of evidence that they are mainly useful after the fact).
The impact of surveillance cameras on democratic rights (freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association) is nontrivial since every time someone makes a decision not to speak, attend, or rally for a cause, our democracy suffers. We should not take our freedoms for granted and we should be extremely cautious about implementing new technologies that could impinge on them.
To give you an example of how this "chilling" effect might happen, consider the situation of those who recently protested about the elections in Iran. They did so in front of the new Vancouver Convention Centre, which is peppered with glossy new surveillance cameras. Would the protests have happened if people knew the cameras were there (the surveillance cameras are the new "dome" type and are quite discrete)? What if they - or even some of them - decided not to attend, not to speak out? Those decisions, collectively, are the decisions of a free and democratic people. And when people decide not to speak out, participate, and congregate, our democracy is weaker than it would otherwise be. And these are attacks on us as a collective, not as individuals.
My suggestion is not that we should remove/bar the use of surveillance technologies but they should exist under a system of checks and balances, just like a wiretap or interrogation. And if companies or private agencies collect images of people then they are liable for the (mis)use of those images.
At present there is not enough oversight on who can put up a camera, who watches the "live" feed, what happens to the archives, even whether or not there is a sign to indicate that cameras are present, who owns them, and why they are being there. Those things - at least - should be required, and for both private businesses and public agencies.
Ironically, we need surveillance of the surveillance. People who put up cameras need to be watched, to make sure they use them for what they say they will, and that they don't misuse them.
Comments [13]