ABSTRACT
The implementation and use of
video surveillance (Closed Circuit Television technology) in societies across
the globe has stimulated major debate on a handful of topics. This report will
provide some discussion on society's ethical on the use of CCTV in public
places. This issue surrounds the importance to
balance the privacy and security as the purpose to monitor and surveillance.
The report will exposed the purpose and technology of CCTV, will discuss about acceptance
of CCTV by the society in public places, CCTV enforcement towards civil rights,
and example of ethical stance issues.
WHAT IS CCTV AND WHY WE USE IT?
CCTV
or Closed-Circuit Television is also known as surveillance camera that being
widely use nowadays. Surveillance as the concept or a management tool is being
described by Clive Norris and Gary Armstrong (1999), as the elementary building
block of all human societies, a form of power. Mainly CCTV can be implemented
in both public and private areas that is somewhere hidden from people’s views.
There
are many purpose in installing the CCTV for surveillance beyond the reach of
enforcement body such as police. According to Vivien Carli (2008),CCTV have expanded to facial recognition
systems, infrared devices, computerised databases to track people, recording of
sounds and voices (microphones), automated license plate identification,
cellular alarm communication, roving video surveillance, unmanned aerial
vehicles and wireless high-speed computer networks that transfer images at
faster rates and improved quality. Most important places that involve money
transaction has been placed with CCTV, but there are also some other place that
did not involve with money transaction also being placed with CCTV such as
shopping mall, schools, recreation park and others. At this era there are also
some people has installed CCTV in their own property such as a house for
security matters.[1][2]
THE PURPOSE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CCTV
The main purpose of having CCTV in public
places is happen to prevent crimes from happening and also monitoring traffic
condition over the road or a highway. When using a facial recognition system on
the CCTV, it is suitable to put it in the public area place so that if any
crime incident is happen the law enforcement can detect the identity base on
facial recognition method from digital image or video frame on a video sources.
According
to Leman-Langlois (2003), currently, there is
available software that translates facial features into simple mathematical
formulas that can be checked against data banks at a faster pace as well as
recognize 3D images. Also in 2002, the United State Parks Service have been
equipted the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island with a facial recognition
software on the computer video surveillance camera there. Another example type
of CCTV is using Sound Location Technology. This technology refer to the
intergration of sound location to video source for crime recognition and crime
investigation. For example, linking a gunshots or a certain voice from someone
speaking to facial recognition.
One example tool using this technology is Smart Sensor
Enabled Neural Threat Recogition and Identification (SENTRI). According to
Vivien Carli (2008), the technology can track gunshot sounds within a two-block
radius, pinpoints the source and then turns a surveillance camera toward the
shooter and places a 911 call. This way officials can track the shooter and
send dispatch officers to the exact scene.[1][3]
ACCEPTANCE OF CCTV BY
THE SOCIETY IN PUBLIC PLACES
According to 2004, Urbaneye CCTV in Europe, final
report, we found a majority of respondents being supportive of CCTV in all five
capital cities. However, national differences in the acceptance of CCTV are
significantly with Britons being most supportive and Austrians and Germans
being rather skeptical.
Furthermore, people draw a clear line where they accept
CCTV. In international comparison the most different attitudes were found
towards open street CCTV which is seen as a “good thing” by 90% of the
respondents in London and only 25% in Viena [5].
However, the percentage is changing due to the
situations. For example, the Viennese are not supportive on open street CCTV
but very supportive on CCTV along motorways. Same goes to people in Oslo which
most supportive for CCTV in taxi passenger seats, maybe because CCTV was
recently discussed after assaults against taxi drivers [5]. As these examples
show, attitudes towards CCTV are not only culturally shaped but are also
contingent on local and temporal contexts [5].
CCTV ENFORCEMENT
TOWARDS CIVIL RIGHTS
Critics argue that CCTV is a threat to civil rights
and democratic values. For instance, its disciplining potential is seen as a
threat to privacy and autonomy. Non-criminals could be forced to change their
daily routines and modify their behaviour according to certain norms determined
by the practice of video surveillance. Others warn that free access to public
spaces might be affected by the employment of CCTV [6]. Moreover, it is argued
that – in face of the blurring of boundaries between public and private space –
the distribution of power between public authorities and private security
services is transforming and thus, the power to monitor people will be misused
[6].
ETHICAL STANCE ISSUES
According
to the 2006 privacy International Report, the use of CCTV technology has rising
up the ethical concerns. These concerns refer to the lack of privacy
protection, the repression of individual liberties for the ‘greater good’ and
mounting fears of insecurity. They have stimulated the rise of rules and regulations
which aim to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms as well as regulate the
use and output of information captured by such systems.
Politician
who abide by CCTV as an effective and successful method in the field of crime
prevention, suggest that the presence of CCTV systems in public spaces act as a
deterrence to criminals or potential offenders. Therefore, innocent individuals
should not be bothered by its presence. The cameras target offenders and thus
offer no harm to the general public. This mentality is widely used to convince
the public that CCTV systems are used for a specific reason and do not impinge
on issues of privacy or civil liberties [5].
This
mentality in fact poses an ethical concern, which assumes that in general
individuals are innocent and must give up some liberties for the ‘greater good’
(to detect the ‘rotten apples in society’). For many, this entails a repression
of rights and freedoms in the name of an ineffective method (Bach 2008).
In some countries, the
public has expressed concern over the issue of how improvements in technology
(increasing places under surveillance) are detrimental to the protection of
privacy and personal data (Ruegg et al. 2004). France’s Commission national de l’informatique
et des libertés (CNIL) warns of the dangers of CCTV of taking away freedoms of
individuals (Guibert and Langellier 2007). In this case, there is also an
absence of structures of accountability when it comes to controlling, monitoring
and assessing information from CCTV systems [7].
According
to the 2006 privacy International Report, CCTV imposes stereotypical expectations,
guilty by association charges and misinterpreted innocent actions. A study
conducted in Oslo, Norway revealed that citizens articulated a concern about
video surveillance controllers targeting ‘scruffies’ for no obvious reason,
which causes marginalization. Stephen Graham (2002) says that these outcomes
reflect a dangerous level of power given to “automated, algorithmic and
invisible systems of social control” which can cause more harm than good to
certain individuals [8].
CONCLUSION
According
to Privacy International Report (2006), Evaluation of CCTV technology and its
multiple dimensions depend greatly on the context. “It is important for each
country to decide rationally and openly which element of personal privacy
should be lost, but it is also important for each country to understand how far
down the path of mass surveillance it has travelled” Therefore, there needs to
be country-level assessments in terms of localized laws, regulations, structures,
initiatives and public reaction. [9]
There
are some suggestions by Leon Hempel & Eric Topfer (2004) on CCTV in Europe
Final Report that can be considered: [10]
Training
All
operators will require professional accreditation of 6 months duration. It will
involve written or legal competency-based assessment. It will be illegal by the
year 2008 to operate a CCTV system unless accredited.
Organization
CCTV
managers must be professionally accredited. They should be made legally
responsible for compliance with human rights, data protection and associated
codes. Discussion: Here, it was mentioned that there is already a high turnover
of operator. In the UK monitoring costs are at a crucial state! Moreover, a six
months operator training is seen as too long. One also should distinguish the
training efforts between small and big systems. Another expert mentioned that
one week training is sufficient, but an accountable management is most
important.
Technology
All
digital system must undergo a privacy security audit, which demonstrates how
privacy-enhancing technologies have been incorporated into the system.
Transparency
Subject
access right must be guaranteed and audited if visual images are linked to
named individual on databases. Subject must be informed of their inclusion and
have a right to access their information.
Scope
There
should be a presumption against video surveillance in public and semi-public
space. It must be justified in relation to appropriateness and the available
alternatives. In specific places (intimate publicly accessible places) the
concept of a surveillance-free zone should be implemented.
REFERENCES
1.
Carli, Vivien, 2008. Assessing CCTV as an Effective Safety and
Management Tool for Crime-solving, Prevention and Reduction, Comparative
Analysis Report for International Center
for the Prevention of Crime, 1-19
2. Norris,
Clive and Armstrong, Gary, 1999. The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of
CCTV, Oxford: Oxford International Publishers Ltd.
3. Leman-Langlois,
Stéphane, 2003. The Myopic Panopticon: The Social Consequences of Policing
Through the Lens, Policing and Society, 13, 1, 44-58.
4. Leman-Langlois,
Stéphane, 2008. The Local Impact of Police CCTV on the Social Construction of
Security, In S. Leman-Langlois (Ed.), Technocrime: Technology, Crime and
Social Control, Chapter Three, 27-45.
5. Hempel,
Leon and Töpfer, Eric, 2004. Inception Report, Working paper nº15, Analysing the
employment of CCTV in European cities and assessing its social and political
impact, Urban Eye, http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp15.pdf
6. Coleman,
C. and C. Norris (2001) : Introducing crimibology, Collompton : Willan
Publishing.
8.
Graham, Stephen, 2002. CCTV: The
Stealthy Emergence of a Fifth Utility?, Planning
Theory and Practice, 3, 2, 237-241.
9.
Privacy
International Report, 2006. Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the
World,http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?
Cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-545269
