Has CCTV surveillance gone too far?

In a world where security concerns often overshadow individual liberties, let’s explore the far-reaching consequences of omnipresent surveillance cameras. Examining the delicate balance between safety and the fundamental right to personal privacy has been quite an ethical dilemma today. From the perceived safety paradox to the legal challenges, we need to inquire how CCTV surveillance shapes the fabric of our modern society. 

What laws authorise CCTV surveillance in public spaces and private establishments, and are there restrictions to protect privacy? How is CCTV data collected, stored, and accessed, and is there a clear data retention policy? What provisions exist for obtaining consent from individuals monitored by CCTV cameras, especially in private settings? Is there evidence supporting the effectiveness of CCTV surveillance in preventing crime? How do legal authorities address potential misuse or abuse of CCTV data, and what measures ensure transparency and accountability?

 

CCTV Surveillance and its Legal Basis

CCTV cameras, also known as Closed-Circuit Television cameras, are video surveillance systems designed for monitoring and security purposes. The legal basis for their use varies from country to country and is typically grounded in public safety, crime prevention, and property protection. These laws govern the installation, deployment areas, data retention, and individuals' privacy rights. As a comprehensive security tool, CCTV is utilised in both public and private sectors to detect and prevent criminal activity, providing a significant enhancement to security levels on private property.

 

Right to Privacy, Consent, and Notice 

In the modern digital age, the interrelation of an individual's right to privacy, consent, and notice forms the ethical and legal foundation. Privacy, as a fundamental human right, safeguards personal information from intrusion and upholds autonomy. Linked closely to privacy, the right to consent empowers individuals to make informed choices about the use of their data, promoting transparency and trust. Complementing consent, the right to notice emphasises clear communication of data usage, enabling individuals to make informed decisions about granting consent. These interconnected rights are crucial in a data-driven world, fostering trust, empowerment, and responsible data practices for both individuals and organisations, ultimately contributing to a more privacy-conscious society. This trinity of a safer world is however, neglected by the narrowly justified scope of CCTV surveillance.

The famous quote by Benjamin Franklin, 'Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,' rings true in this context. The presence of cameras everywhere might not serve as an effective deterrent, as a simple mask can evade identification. Moreover, while governments may argue it's for our safety, the potential consequences of unrestricted surveillance falling into the wrong hands could be catastrophic. Living our lives under constant watch is an infringement on our right to privacy, something we should not have to endure.

Consent laws across nations govern the recording of individuals on video or audio without their approval. Typically, consent from one or both parties is required for recording to be lawful. Adhering to General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union, businesses must display visible and legible signs indicating the operation of CCTV. Placing security cameras in plain sight is not only in compliance but also ensures transparency. It's worth noting that video evidence obtained from private places, like bathrooms or bedrooms, may be deemed inadmissible in court unless all parties involved are aware of the recording.

  • United States of America: Video surveillance laws in the USA exhibit significant variability across different states. Generally, it is lawful to install residential security cameras and record video. However, citizens are also entitled to reasonable expectations of privacy. Some states, such as Alabama, Florida, and Kansas, prohibit CCTV surveillance in private places.
  • European Union (EU):In the EU, companies planning to implement surveillance cameras must adhere to certain considerations. Firstly, they must conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Additionally, they should explore alternative measures that are less intrusive to individuals' basic rights and freedoms before resorting to video surveillance. The appropriateness, necessity, and adequacy of the video surveillance system for its intended purposes must also be assessed.
  • United Kingdom: Specific CCTV legislation was introduced in 2012, accompanied by a Code of Conduct in 2013.

 

Efficacy on Crime Prevention versus Violation of Privacy through Data Retention

The effectiveness of CCTV surveillance in crime prevention has been widely studied and documented around the world. One of the primary advantages of these cameras is their ability to provide valuable evidence, making it easier to track and apprehend criminals. Research conducted by Jewitt (2007) reveals that in many parts of America, Europe, and Asia, the presence of CCTV surveillance has led to a considerable decrease in criminal cases.

CCTV is often considered a form of Situational Crime Prevention (SCP), wherein formal surveillance within a target area is increased to deter criminal activities. This approach focuses on the area where crime occurs rather than solely on the criminals themselves, leading to both substantial and moderate reductions in crime rates, as shown by the crime reduction statistics of the National Institute of Justice, US. Consequently, CCTV has provided individuals and businesses with previously unattainable levels of security.

However, amidst the beneficial outcomes, concerns have arisen regarding the potential infringement on individuals' reasonable expectation of privacy. Certain locations, such as hotel rooms, residential areas, public restrooms, telephone booths, changing rooms, and specific prison zones, are considered areas where a person has a legitimate right to privacy.

Although CCTV has undoubtedly improved security, it has also been prone to abuse, leading to significant privacy breaches. Instances have been reported where CCTV cameras captured footage of celebrities and high-profile individuals, which was then sold for financial gain. Furthermore, cyber law experts opine on privacy breaches that the data collected by these cameras can be misused by private entities for nefarious purposes, jeopardising public privacy.

The integration of smarter video analytics and facial recognition technology (FRT) with CCTV has raised even more concerns. Studies have highlighted issues of bias and discrimination in FRT systems, with inaccuracies in identifying women and people with darker skin tones. The UK’s Ada Lovelace Institute survey has come to conclusions regarding FRT inaccuracies that false positives have also been a significant problem, particularly in law enforcement contexts, where FRT misidentified potential criminals in a considerable percentage of scans. Public attitudes towards FRT deployment reflect growing concerns. The survey also revealed that the majority of the public desires greater limitations on FRT usage, with many wanting the option to opt-out or at least consent to its application.

While CCTV surveillance has shown positive impacts on crime prevention, its widespread use raises valid concerns about privacy infringements and the integration of advanced technologies with potential biases. Striking a balance between security and privacy remains a complex challenge that necessitates robust regulation and ethical considerations.

 

Laws in Nepal

The Privacy Act of 2075 (2018) in Nepal outlines several regulations concerning the installation and operation of CCTV surveillance. Firstly, it strictly prohibits the installation of CCTV cameras in any person's residence without obtaining their explicit consent or for the purpose of collecting personal information about the resident. For public places, CCTV cameras can be installed as long as they are not placed in areas such as toilets, bathrooms, or changing rooms. Moreover, the installation of these cameras in public spaces requires proper notice to be displayed so that individuals are informed about their presence. The specific provisions for CCTV installation in various locations are outlined in accordance with the law.

According to the Privacy Rules of 2077 (2020), any entity intending to install CCTV cameras for supervising public security and movement must provide relevant information to the District Administration Office (DAO). The DAO is responsible for appointing an examination and observation team to ensure that companies and individuals adhering to legislative requirements operate the CCTV cameras. Furthermore, the rules strictly forbid the use of CCTV footage for public or commercial purposes. Non-compliance with the law may result in legal consequences as per the Electronic Transactions Act.

The CCTV Installation and Operation Procedure of 2072 categorises the types of CCTV installations into three groups: Public Places, Commercial Purposes, and Private Installations. These categories likely define the different guidelines and requirements for each type of CCTV installation within Nepal's legal framework.

Except for these, Nepal lacks a dedicated law or policy in the arena of authorised digital surveillance over the public.

 

Case Studies

There are cases where the usage of surveillance cameras has served important purposes. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, surveillance cameras played a crucial role in identifying and locating the perpetrators, the Tsarnaev brothers. Subsequently, there were increased calls for more video camera surveillance in public spaces to enhance public safety.

On the other hand, it has also been raising concerns about private space. In the case of U.S. v. Vargas, the court primarily examined whether Mr. Vargas possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning his front yard, which had been continuously observed and recorded by a hidden camera with zooming and panning capabilities on a distant telephone pole for six weeks. The key question was whether his belief in privacy was subjectively reasonable and whether society would find it objectively reasonable. Ultimately, the court ruled that the video surveillance camera, targeting an individual's front yard in a rural setting, indeed violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

Recommendation

To ensure responsible CCTV surveillance without infringing on personal privacy, several key recommendations should be taken into account. These include using clear signage to inform individuals of monitored areas, targeted camera placement in high-risk zones, and limitations on zooming and panning capabilities. Implementing time restrictions, data retention policies, and privacy impact assessments can further protect privacy. Anonymization and masking techniques can obscure identifiable information, while regular audits and compliance checks maintain adherence to privacy guidelines. Exploring alternative security measures and involving the public through consultation ensure a balanced and effective approach to CCTV surveillance that respects personal privacy.

 

Reference

 

Comments