Society's Ethical Stance On The Use Of CCTV (PRESENTATION)

Society’s Ethical Stance On The Use Of CCTV in Public Place (PART 1)

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.

7.      Babwin, Don, 2007. Chicago video surveillance gets smarter, Associated Press, September 27, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RTSNE84&show_article=1

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

10.  Hempel, Leon and Töpfer, Eric, 2004. Inception Report, Working paper nº15,http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp15.pdf