Surveillance Cameras In Cities: A Threat To Privacy? – Analysis

By Ramanath Jha

Technology continues to grow in its pervasive presence in our daily lives. One such area is video surveillance through closed-circuit television (CCTV) found at home, at the workplace, in businesses, on streets and in public spaces. Consequently, technology is progressively becoming central in the management of city spaces. On the flip side, the intense invasion and examination of the lives of individual citizens through constant surveillance could have serious consequences on people’s freedom and private space.

The use of surveillance cameras in private spaces has been a rising phenomenon. More and more homes are installing security cameras. Globally, there were 122.1 million households that were using security cameras at home, estimated to rise to 180.7 million households by 2027. For families, where every member goes out to work, security cameras keep unceasing vigilance at home to secure family property. CCTV systems that are fortified with intruder alarm systems do even better and significantly heighten home security. Furthermore, the ‘live feed app’ allows parents to keep a tab on housekeepers, especially when a little child is left behind. Indeed, being constantly in touch with home provides great peace of mind to working couples. 

Just as at homes, businesses and offices around the world are progressively placing more and more reliance on such technological assistance for surveillance and security. A smartly designed CCTV system installed in a business premise can provide comprehensive coverage on real real-time basis that is accessible from anywhere in the world. Besides enhanced security, reduced insurance costs and quality evidence for misdemeanours when required, the monitoring of employee behaviour has also led to greater worker productivity in firms, restaurants and call centres. Such monitoring has also been employed in healthcare facilities and schools. Positive consequences, including improved performance, have accrued through such surveillance. 

The use of surveillance cameras for street surveillance is even more significant and is the subject of discussion in this article. A street camera is an electronic device that is strategically located in a street for automated data collection. There is no doubt that cameras on streets act as a deterrent. They discourage potential wrongdoers from crossing the propriety line and warn criminals to desist from engaging in unlawful activities. They make public spaces safer. Furthermore, they record events on the street that can be reviewed if the need arises. Since the record of visual evidence is the best form of evidence, it is a huge help in solving crimes and convicting criminals. CCTV helps not merely in identifying individuals who committed the crime but is equally useful in identifying witnesses.

A study conducted in regard to the efficacy of cameras in crime solving concluded that CCTV was valuable in 65 percent of cases and was useful for all crimes except drugs, weapons possession and fraud. While eyewitnesses of events may be biased and may not always bring forth the truth, video records may sometimes be unclear but are never biased. Hence the trustworthiness of such evidence is generally beyond doubt. 

Since cameras are on duty 24 hours, they provide a modicum of psychological feeling of safety when people are walking the streets, no matter how lonely or crowded the streets are. Its round-the-clock presence and alertness cannot be matched by the best human presence. An added advantage, apart from constant presence, is that cameras can be placed where they are most needed and, at optimum angles to provide the best view. Additionally, they can be monitored from a central location. Many cities are already using artificial intelligence-enabled traffic cameras, which provide critical assistance in traffic management by capturing and processing real-time data. They perform the added service of capturing traffic delinquencies, such as jumping red lights, speeding, disregarding stop signs and dangerous lane cutting. 

Street surveillance cameras are equally essential in crowded spaces like airports, train stations, stadiums and large gatherings and in access control. The cameras allow immediate corrective measures and help avert incidents such as stampedes. In traffic and transportation, they can monitor passenger flows and provide decision-makers with valuable data for reducing congestion and ensuring smoother traffic flows. A study in Chandigarh revealed that cameras on the streets increase on-the-ground tickets. They can also capture the passive (shirking) or active (rent-seeking) malfeasance of government personnel. Overall, while such remote monitoring technology may not become a complete substitute for on-the-ground enforcement, it can be a great complementary instrument. 

With pervasive street and business surveillance becoming the order of the day, questions emerge about emerging threats to people’s way of life. Widespread visual surveillance may have a serious impact on free speech and activity. Fears are raised that CCTV surveillance creates an almost Orwellian potential for surveillance and virtually invites abuse. Political debate also rages about the proper balance between ensuring the effectiveness of CCTV and protecting the privacy of citizens.

As surveillance technology is getting smarter and wider in its proliferation, questions in regard to the invasion of privacy have become more pronounced. There is no doubt that surveillance of public spaces has seriously diminished private space. Right from the moment an individual steps out on the street till the time he or she is back home, a person is literally under watch. Whether one is chatting with a friend in a park, sharing jokes in a gathering or expressing an opinion on subjects—it is very likely that these events and utterances would be public property.

Combined with artificial intelligence and a dramatic drop in equipment costs, it is today possible to install miniscule, high-definition devices that are completely concealed and can record and transmit to computers almost anywhere. The ‘chilling effect’ of such surveillance could result in human behavioural modifications where people may decide to eschew the exercise of their basic rights, such as freedom of speech or peaceful protest, for the sake of personal safety. Furthermore, there are worries that public surveillance may even help perpetuate societal discrimination. When algorithms are fed with biased data, they would reinforce biases within the data and intensify unwarranted discrepancies in law enforcement.

Thus, while useful positives emerge out of the surveillance of public spaces, a huge quantum of private data becomes available to public authorities. And it cannot be asserted that bits of such data will never be used for harassment of individuals or groups. Governments have recognised privacy-related gaps in the use of surveillance cameras and in the administration of the systems that could result in an undesirable privacy breach. Therefore, appropriate laws are essential to ensure the rightful use of such private data. Public authorities must put in place policy guidelines for governmental and security agencies entrusted with handling such data and appropriate penalties for their breach.

One of the major suggestions regarding penalties has been that the misuse of personal data should invite heavy compensation to be paid to the wronged individuals. Personal data that is no longer required ought to be destroyed forthwith. While some democratic countries are moving ahead in expanding privacy laws, small businesses and individual enterprises appear to be the most unregulated. It is evident that technological advancement, public surveillance, and privacy laws will continue the cat-and-mouse game for some time to come.

• About the author: Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
• Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation.