Smile! You’re on candid camera
Cameras provide a false sense of security
Jacques Marcoux, Volunteer Staff
Looks like Winnipeg is going to be the next city in line to give in to groundless public paranoia. Over the past three weeks, discussions surrounding a proposal to install public surveillance cameras sporadically throughout the city have emerged. The objectives, although closely related, are distinguishably twofold. First, the surveillance cameras are designed to help curb crime rates and provide the police force with additional investigative tools to assist them in convictions. The second and more concerning objective is to provide citizens with a sense of security (read: false sense of security), in knowing that they are being watched.
It appears that this debate took new life following the arrest of a man charged with sexual assault this past December, thanks to the images of his vehicle caught on a private surveillance camera. This camera proposal has thus far been publicly supported by Mayor Sam Katz, the director of Downtown BIZ, Stefano Grande, as well as Scott Fielding, the St. James city councillor, who plans to bring forth a motion at city council sometime this week.
Despite the eerie, Orwellian undertones of this proposal, philosophical debates over the issue will be saved for another day. In tackling this controversial concern, it is difficult to overlook the tempting discussion of privacy rights (not that it should be overlooked) without proper dialogue. Let’s try to stick to some more objective facts.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is the assertion from councillor Gord Steeves, chair of the city’s protection and community services committee, that “while Winnipeggers have expressed resistance to such surveillance in the past, the public seems to have warmed to the idea.” Really? I don’t recall any form of public opinion survey having been conducted on the issue. Surely if the city decides to walk such a controversial thin line, they would want to ensure that the general consensus from the public, as misguided as it might be, is that Winnipeggers are prepared to accept the consequences of such a program.
I see no problem with private landowners making use of video surveillance to protecting themselves from liability or as a method of dissuading would-be theft or vandalism. As individuals, we make the conscious decision to set foot on private property knowing very well that there is the possibility of being watched; individuals can adjust accordingly to their tolerance for privacy. In fact, most private places today make use of video cameras already; for example, taxis, banks and retail stores. However, when going about their daily lives in public, individuals could not reasonably avoid mass video surveillance; the right to not be under state surveillance without due cause is at the core of a free and democratic society. Of course, privacy is not an absolute right and exceptional circumstances could allow for public surveillance at troubled location as identified by police, but a city-wide umbrella network of undercover cameras is completely undemocratic. It is akin to saying that everyone is a potential suspect.
What is the cost of installing and maintaining all these cameras? What are the costs of hiring individuals to monitor them closely enough to even make them worthwhile? Would it instead be more cost-efficient in the long-term to divert this money towards the root cause of the problem and invest into the communities at risk? There are many similarities between this proposal and the existing network of photo-radar cameras on our city roads. For example, the latest figures show that the number of individuals triggering the cameras has declined since its inception, yet the accident rates have remained consistent. It appears people are simply not speeding when crossing a photo-radar intersection, and accelerating once past the intersection. Why should we believe that this will not happen with crime in public? They couldn’t possibly cover every square inch of the city with surveillance cameras — could they?
Councilor Fielding defends his position on the public surveillance cameras citing, what appears to be, positive statistics from major U.S. cities. But for this specific issue, all the statistics in the world mean nothing. The mere fact that we’ve come to the breaking-point where the concept of 24-hour public surveillance has entered the discussion should be raising a red flag as we obviously have more pressing problems to address, specifically inner-city housing and development, integration of immigrants into Canadian society, and aboriginal poverty.
In closing, I’ll leave you with perhaps the most alarming quote from Stefano Grande, the Downtown BIZ director. The quote, when singled out, reveals just how dangerous this proposal truly is: “Cameras provide assurance to the public that someone is watching them and taking care of them. Concerns about the loss of privacy are fading as people see positive results from security surveillance and grow accustomed to being on cameras themselves.”
Jacques Marcoux is a commerce graduate.
