I have been studying the use of surveillance cameras in public places recently and have several reservations about them. I have been participating in interviews in the media and writing about the cameras in order to encourage discussion and debate about publicly funded cameras in public places, as I think we need a greater awareness and make decisions based on a rational and informed discussion.
Some of my reservations include:
Bang for the buck
Although cameras are often touted as a cheap alternative to policing, or extending the "reach" of police, there is actually little scientific evidence for this. Cameras that are suitable for police work are expensive to install and maintain and there is little evidence that they do anything to deter crime, despite what people assume. They are particularly ineffective in the area of violent crime since, as you might imagine, these crimes are mainly committed as crimes of passion and people don't look around for cameras when they are inflamed, drunk, or both. Sadly, many people have a mistaken impression about the effectiveness of cameras, a position that is encouraged by the people who manufacture them and sell them and install them. They simply don't work - or to put it more precisely, they don't work as well as people who promote them say they do - and we would be better off investing in other forms of policing.
(In)Action
A camera, of course, cannot respond to a crime in progress the way a human being can. Even more mischievously, many people assume that the presence of a camera implies a camera operator, one who is watching every moment and has their finger on the button to summon help. Sadly this is not the case. A tiny minority of cameras are watched at all, and of those many are watched in snippets or on rotation. Basically, other than a few exceptional cases, being attacked on camera is only useful for later - as in "yep, here is where you can see the guy jump out and push the old lady!" Tapes will be reviewed in the event of a serious crime (violent rape or murder) IF the police are stumped for clues. But mostly they are just recycled (of course now it is all digital, so they just write over the hard disks). And even the "review the tape" response is of vanishingly little use. A recent study of the Metropolitan Police Force's use of cameras (in London, where they have over a million) found that cameras were used in only a tiny minority of criminal prosecutions.
Those two concerns are practical and any taxpayer should be concerned about their dollars being wasted. The City of Vancouver knows these uncertain research results and has twice rejected camera proposals from the police for this reason (an earlier, 2005 "study of studies" that showed no or low impact from cameras was the main reason the proposal for cameras in the downtown east side was pulled).
Freedom
I have another issue with cameras, however. It isn't the usual "privacy" complaint, which I think is quite often over-stated. If you walk around on public streets you do not have any expectation of privacy. That is the law in Canada and it has been like that long before surveillance cameras existed. You do, however, have expectations of freedom and in this regard I think cameras are on shakier ground. Freedom, in a country like Canada, can become a taken-for-granted thing, since we generally regard the police and the state as benevolent and upholders of our human rights. And, for the most part that is true. But political and personal freedoms are hard-won and those with long memories will know that our freedoms were most definitely in peril as recently as the Second World War, and many Canadians paid a terrible price to protect those freedoms for their children and grandchildren. And Canadian soldiers, every day, are at risk around the world trying to help other countries achieve the kinds of freedoms we (perhaps) take for granted.
Symbolism
What do cameras have to do with that? I think that publicly funded street surveillance cameras (not the ones in a private business, of course) are understood as a visible symbol of the state and as such they should be carefully deployed. One of the challenges of symbols is that you have to be particularly careful about how they are "read" by people. And not everyone has the same understanding of the symbols of the state. Cameras, for better or worse, are linked to some of the worst aspects of the authoritarian state: they are anonymous, impersonal, are mounted "on high" to watch over us. This symbolic aspect should not be taken lightly, as the symbols of a nation (think of our flag, our songs, our community buildings) communicate what it is to be a citizen.
Populations at risk
These symbols are particularly important for two kinds of folks in our country who haven't been around as long as you or I: young people and new immigrants. For these citizens having the "face" of the state manifested in a camera, a device that is emblematic of a much resented authoritarianism (George Orwell's "1984" is required reading for all BC high school students), is particularly unfortunate, as it might sour their relationship with the state for years to come. People who know Canada, who have long experience with our public institutions, will have a thick layer of trust that protects them from minor irritants like a camera on the street. For a young person or a recent immigrant, that layer of trust is wafer thin. Can we risk their disengagement from our institutions and our society? Does that not actually make use LESS safe, if people don't trust each other and the government?
Democracy
Democracy works because many thousands of individuals make informed choices about who should lead them, and how. They are informed because they are free to talk about (almost) anything and to anyone, without fear of reprisal (barring some obvious exceptions like criminal plotting and so on). And we have the ability to move around our country and gather where and when we see fit in order to become informed or inform others. These are foundational and precious rights. They should be impinged only with the greatest reservations and to the least degree. If some people - such as the youth or new Canadians I mentioned above - feel that they are being watched, and that this might result in some harm to them in the future, then they might just do a little less moving, talking, and listening. They might avoid a speaker in the park or a rally in front of a government building. And the sad thing about that is that every action NOT taken is like a cut on the body of a democratic society. We must avoid, at all costs, the undermining of our society by the disengagement of our citizens. And if cameras are spooking them, even if we think that they shouldn't be worried about them, we need to either remove the cameras or (see below) operate them in such a fashion that they do not cause alarm or disengagement.
Reciprocity
Cameras also provide no opportunities for reciprocity. Reciprocity is the ability to look back, to question, to make a comment. The kind of back and forth that makes an encounter with an RCMP officer - as uncomfortable as you might feel about being caught speeding - quite different than being captured on a "speed camera." And, of course, you can ask a police officer for help, for directions, or just for the time of day. It is possible to have a relationship with them. That is the kind of state that the founders of our democracy - and I would suggest all democracies - were seeking. One in which the citizen and the policeman are equals and working together to make a better society. The police are not masters of our house. I know many Canadian policemen and they are happiest when they are protecting our rights and freedoms. For many of them that is why they joined - to "serve and protect." Serve who? The citizens.
Practicality
I am not naive enough to think that cameras won't be used in a variety of circumstances or that they can never be helpful tools in police work. I think that is taken for granted, and we will continue to see them used, just as we've come to accept fingerprints, DNA testing, and wire taps. But all of these technological shortcuts need to be deployed when and where appropriate and only to the degree necessary. Not willy nilly wherever people think it might be useful to watch people. Instead, the cameras should be a last resort, should be appropriate to the problem, and should be governed by laws and regulations on how they are used and when (as wiretaps are, for example).[1]
If you've done nothing wrong...
There are countries in the world - China, for example - where it is wise to live quietly and not raise a ruckus and stand by while your freedom is trampled on, hoping that "since you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." That is how they have to live. Citizens of a democracy, with Charter rights and freedoms get to ask a different question: "unless you have reasonable grounds to believe I have done something wrong, why are you interfering with my life?" That is our question to ask, and we must continue to ask it or risk losing what our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. As Ben Franklin once said, a man who would forgo freedom for security deserves neither. [2]
=====
[1] This is the practice in BC, in fact: cameras are to be used as a last resort, should be deployed where they are going to work, and have to be maintained and operated responsibly. Unfortunately, these "rules" are guidelines from the privacy commissioner and are not always abided by.
[2] Ben Franklin's actual quote is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Comments [0]