Are you being watched?

by Talklaw Project Coordinator 3:38pm, 10 June 2009 You will need to login or sign up to do that

Surveillance has become commonplace in modern society.
Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, listening devices, location tracking technologies such as GPS and internet technologies have made it possible to watch us in our daily lives - in public and in private.

The reasons why people might want to undertake surveillance are often legitimate. It can help to deter or investigate wrongful behaviour. But surveillance can have negative effects too.

In many situations, the law does not stop people from using surveillance technologies nor does it control the way these technologies are used.
Should people's privacy be protected in any way when they are in public places?
What concerns do you have about surveillance in a private situation such as your workplace?
Are there any surveillance technologies that you are particularly concerned about?

*Big Brother is watching you! 60 minutes investigates the use of hidden cameras in New Zealand. Watch video

This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.

+ Expand All Comments

stevel Comment 1

7:40pm, 30 June 2009

People may well have to accept a lack of privacy in public places, because that is what public means; but workplaces are not public places, so there should be clear guidelines for all staff about what surveillance is being used and for what reason.

Showing 1 reply

skepties Comment 1.1

9:24pm, 21 July 2009

The first questions depends on who the people are being protected against? I think the question should be changed to 'in what circumstances should the reasonable expectation of privacy in public place be waived?' For reasons such as public safety, crime prevention, national security there should be exceptions under specific circumstances which I will not get into.

I would prefer a definition of workplace to fall into a private place category. Only the occupier of the premises should be able to use surveillance technology within those premises and these should only be used for certain reasons such as security, above cash registers, safety and there will be more and they can be further elaborated on later. Staff who are employed by these occupiers should be made aware from the commencement of their employment/installation of surveillance technology of the extent of the surveillance as to the amount of technology used and its whereabouts and the purpose for the surveillance. Therefore they are kept in the loop about it and if any information is used for reasons other than those specified they should have a remedy in employment law.

Dominique Comment 2

2:43pm, 29 July 2009

See the psychological literature about the 'comfort zone'. For psychologists, the comfort zone is an imaginary field that each if us places around us. We are happy for people we trust to come inside (eg: partners, friends, family) - this can bring us great joy. We also permit others inside to see if trust will grow (eg: new friends, work collegues).

We are unhappy when people we don't trust come inside our comfort zone without invitation. For example, we can feel uncomfortable when a person we don't know or trust touches us on the hand or even comes too close. Surveillance measures can pierce the comfort zone in a similar way. For example, cameras placed in streets can pierce our comfort zone when they can zoom into our bedroom window, look down our tops, or up skirts.

The trick, as has been said above, is balance. But how do you balance? The theory of the confort zone can help. The key is trust - those who operate surveillance mechanisms need to be trusted.

Surveillance meausres should not enter our comfort zones without our consent or without gaining our prior trust. Over time, we have begun to trust that cameras on the streets will be used to fight crime, rather than to perve on women etc. But our trust will be diminished if perverse cases arise.

I submit that those using surveillance measures should be accountable, and seen to be accountable, for their use. If my employer is to place cameras in the work place, those cameras ought only to be used to ensure that I am doing my job. I want to know if my employer has misused that information.

So how do you do this? We should take some tips from the Search and Surveillance Bill. There should be preconditions to meet before any surveillance is permitted. A low level (cost effective) formula could be certification from a lawyer or even self-certification. A higher level could be a Court order. This will depend on the seriousness of the surveillance and the privacy intruded upon.

Once surveillance measures are in place, the information privacy principles should be followed to the extent they can be applied (eg: data should be deleted if it does not have a use for which it was collected; surveillance measueres should be removed when they no longer serve their purpose).

All surveillance measures should be subject to randon audits to ensure data collected is not used for improper purposes. The Privacy Commissioner could hold all certifications and undertake randon inspections of premises.

These are all just ideas, but the principle is most important - surveillance measures should only be used to the extent that we (the public) trust their use will not unreasonably invade our comfort zones.

There is more to be said here, including the need for a clear definition of 'surveillance activities'. I hope this helps dealing with this increadibly difficult topic which is constantly evolving. Dominique.

Quarter Comment 3

4:53am, 10 August 2009

I am in the UK at the moment, and CCTV surveillance is everywhere. When I worked here previously in 2003, the school in which I was working had many CCTV cameras, and it was infact my first job of the day to change the tapes on one of these machines which had 4x cameras monitoring locker rooms.

I thought it was rather strange, but security at the school was tight after the daughter of a high power figure 'went missing' (turned out drinking in London with her b/f) the year previously. Everyone needed a pass to enter, and if a vehicle did not have proper signage, it would be towed.

It was a boarding school - so this was the home of these children/teens. Perhaps the parents felt safe their kids were being 'watched'. I know if I feel like there is too much control placed over me, it causes feelings of rebellion to boil up - its human nature; I'm playing my roll.

Recently while in China, the amount of police control made me have similar urges - perhaps because I was aware of the corruption and rule I was under. Classic guard/prisoner syndrome. I think having CCTV in main city centers, or outside bars/pubs where offenses often happen is a good deterrent. I do not believe it should extend to residential areas, though it is very prevalent here (UK) with a number of individual owners of such devices.