smirby’s posterous

Tags


Filed under

cctv

 
July 5, 2009

Surveillance cameras - speak truth to power?

One of the annoying things about the discussions around surveillance cameras is the tendency for the device itself to be referred to as a "security" camera. This, of course, highjacks criticism and positions the object as something that is beyond reproach. How could you be against "security?" In truth, there is nothing inherently secure about a camera. It is inert and cannot take action in a risky situation.

Moreover, surveillance cameras are rarely monitored and when monitored they are not monitored by people who can deploy a response. There are exceptions to this, of course, but rare. As anyone who has had the experience can attest, the images recorded by cameras are typically referred to long after the event, typically with a narration by the guard in charge: "Yup. There goes your (bike/backpack/leather jacket). See, just there, in the corner? Too bad about that."

Surveillance cameras don't make you "secure" in your person, either. The kind of incident that would *really* make you want to pay for/support/endorse a surveillance camera, the violent crime, is rarely premeditated, rarely unaccompanied by alcohol and drugs, and as a result rarely deterred by a surveillance camera.

Both of these "insecurities" are well documented by research, with the summary conclusion of a major study by the UK "home office" being

Overall, the best current evidence suggests that CCTV reduces crime to a small degree. CCTV is most effective in reducing vehicle crime in car parks, but it had little or no effect on crime in public transport and city centre settings.

The reference to "CCTV" is another misnomer, of course. These cameras are rarely "closed circuit" any more, and exist in vast networks monitored from central locations. In some cases the monitoring is done by international outsourcing firms based in other countries. But that's a whole other topic...

So I insist on calling them surveillance cameras, and I hope you will too. Don't let the language of commercial interests colour the real nature of these technologies. At the same time, calling them for what they are doesn't mean I am recommending a knee-jerk rejection of surveillance cameras, either. Surveillance cameras have a place in our society but they should be used responsibly and their potential harms acknowledged and mitigated.

NOTE: When I was trying to formulate a title to this post I was initially hesitant to use the "speak truth to power" phrase, made famous by the Quakers many years ago (see http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html). When I started to think about it, though, the very essence of surveillance is to watch over someone as part of the exercise of power. Moreover, controlling the language we use about something is fundamental to retaining and asserting power, as George Orwell knew only too well in his book about Big Brother and the "Ministry of Truth." So, my use of the phrase stands.

(Image from Wikipedia)

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   cctv   power   semantics   semiotics   surveillance  

Comments [0]

July 2, 2009

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.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   2010   cctv   civil rights   olympics   surveillance   vancouver  

Comments [13]