2012/17: Increasing the use of CCTV: should Australia install more closed circuit TV cameras?
What they said...
'You can still be murdered, raped, bashed, robbed or harassed or whatever and you know walking in front of the CCTV camera doesn't necessarily protect you from that'
David Vaile, the vice-chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation
'For the most part, it is for our safety...In public you are in full view. You should expect to be filmed'
Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective
The issue at a glance
Following the alleged abduction and murder of Brunswick resident, Jill Meagher, in September 2012, the Victorian Government has ordered an audit of Melbourne's CCTV network. Melbourne lord mayor, Robert Doyle, has stated, 'I would be very happy to look at putting more (cameras) in.'
Similarly, Western Australia's Police Union and the State Opposition have called for more security cameras in Perth's nightlife areas amid concerns there are big blind spots in the CCTV network.
Western Australian Police Minister, Liza Harvey, has claimed that the cameras, which played a role in the arrest of the alleged killer of former Perth resident, Jill Meagher, were 'an effective tool in both preventing and solving crimes'.
Though proposals for increased CCTV surveillance appear to have general public support, there are those who are concerned about the privacy implications of a proliferation of CCTV cameras. There have also been significant doubts raised about the efficacy of this form of surveillance as a crime prevention measure. There are also those who suggest its utility in detecting and prosecuting criminals has been exaggerated.
Background
(The following information is an edited version of some of the material found in the Wikipedia entry titled 'Closed-circuit television'.
The full text of this entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television)
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors. It differs from broadcast television in that the signal is not openly transmitted. The term is most often applied to those cameras used for surveillance in areas that may need monitoring such as banks, casinos, airports, military installations, and convenience stores.
CCTV systems may operate continuously or only as required to monitor a particular event. A more advanced form of CCTV, utilizing Digital Video Recorders (DVRs), provides recording for possibly many years, with a variety of quality and performance options and extra features (such as motion-detection and email alerts). More recently, decentralized IP-based CCTV cameras, some equipped with megapixel sensors, support recording directly to network-attached storage devices, or internal flash for completely stand-alone operation.
Surveillance of the public using CCTV is particularly common in many areas around the world including the United Kingdom, where there are reportedly more cameras per person than in any other country in the world. There and elsewhere, its increasing use has triggered a debate about security versus privacy.
There is strong anecdotal evidence that CCTV aids in detection and conviction of offenders; indeed UK police forces routinely seek CCTV recordings after crimes. Moreover CCTV has played a crucial role in tracing the movements of suspects or victims and is widely regarded by antiterrorist officers as a fundamental tool in tracking terrorist suspects.
Large-scale CCTV installations have played a key part of the defences against terrorism since the 1970s. Cameras have also been installed on public transport in the hope of deterring crime, and in mobile police surveillance vans, often with automatic number plate recognition, and a network of APNI-linked cameras is used to manage London's congestion charging zone.
Even so there is political hostility to surveillance and several commentators downplay the evidence of CCTV's effectiveness, especially in the United States. However, most of these assertions are based on poor methodology or imperfect comparisons.
A more open question is whether most CCTV is cost-effective. While low-quality domestic kits are cheap, the professional installation and maintenance of high definition CCTV is expensive. Gill and Spring did a cost-benefit analysis of CCTV in crime prevention that showed little monetary saving with the installation of CCTV as most of the crimes prevented resulted in little monetary loss. It was however noted that benefits of non-monetary value cannot be captured in a traditional cost-benefit analysis and were omitted from their study. To get a full understanding of the costs and benefits of CCTV in crime prevention these factors would have to be included.
A 2008 Report by UK Police Chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. In London, a Metropolitan Police report showed that in 2008 only one crime was solved per 1000 cameras. In some cases CCTV cameras have become a target of attacks themselves.
Internet information
In 2000, the New South Wales government released its Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in Public Places.
The full text can be accessed at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/vwfiles/cctv.pdf/$file/cctv.pdf
In April 2003, Dr Dean Wilson and Dr Adam Sutton presented a report titled 'Open-Street CCTV in Australia: A comparative study of establishment and operation' to the Criminology Research Council. The full text of this report can be accessed at http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/200102-26.pdf
On May 18, 2006, Wired published an opinion piece by Bruce Schneier, the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of 'Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World'. Schneier argues that CCTV surveillance can pose a significant threat to privacy and that its expanded use should not be blindly accepted as necessary or desirable.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886
On September 22, 2007, The Sydney Morning Herald published a background piece titled, 'There is nowhere to hide in Sydney' looking at the extent and implication of CCTV surveillance in that city.
Though not overtly an opinion piece, its attitude toward this surveillance is predominantly negative. The full text can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/there-is-nowhere-to-hide-in-sydney/2007/09/21/1189881777231.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
On March 17, 2008, The Independent published an opinion piece by Johann Hari who argues for the benefits of CCTV surveillance and suggests the privacy issues are minimal. The full text of this argument can be found at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-strange-backlash-against-cctv-796807.html
On November 28, 2009, Perth Now reported on plans to give Western Australian police integrated access to all security cameras on government buildings.
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/police-access-to-government-cctv-footage-sparks-rights-row/story-e6frg143-1225804954034
On October 1, 2012, The West Australian ran a report on calls from the Western Australian Police Union and the State Opposition for more CCTV surveillance in Perth.
The full text of this article can be found at http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15001653/murder-spurs-push-for-more-city-cctv-cameras/
On October 8, 2012, ABC Radio's PM current affairs program broadcast a segment titled 'Questions over use of CCTV in crime prevention'. The segment included comments from a range of stakeholders on the issue.
A full transcript of the segment can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3606244.htm
On October 10, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by Dr Emmeline Taylor, a criminologist in the school of sociology at the Australian National University. Dr Taylor argues that the technology is less effective than is popularly believed and that it is very expensive.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-cost-of-cctv-might-stop-you-smiling-20121009-27b4m.html
On October 12, 2012, ABC Radio's current affairs program The World Today ran a segment titled 'When can the private be made public? We debate the experts'.
The segment presented a range of views on the issues surrounding the protection of privacy.
The full text of the segment can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3609373.htm
Arguments in favour of Australia installing more closed circuit TV cameras
1. These cameras act as a deterrent to potential criminals
Although it is acknowledged that CCTV surveillance has had a less dramatic deterrent effect than its original proponents hoped, supporters of the technology argue that the use of surveillance cameras as a criminal deterrent does succeed when it is part of a broader crime reduction strategy with active monitoring and where police are able to respond quickly to a developing incident.
Defenders of CCTV surveillance also argue that what should be acknowledged is that there are 'degrees of deterrence', that is, that there are types of crime and types of criminal that will be deterred by the presence of a CCTV camera and others that will not.
Todd Thompson, a project manager for CCTV 2M Solutions has argued, 'To suggest anything actually prevents crime by a determined criminal is misleading. Even the force of police officers in the street, the military guarding against crimes of terrorism, and a highly observant public, cannot always defeat the criminal mind. However, prevention measures, including CCTV surveillance, can deter the marginal criminal.'
It is also argued that there is no way of clearly establishing that CCTV has had no deterrent effect as there is no way of knowing what the incidence of crime would have been a particular location without them.
2. These cameras make it easier to apprehend and convict criminals
It has been claimed that CCTV footage is an invaluable tool in assisting police in the apprehension of criminals. The footage can also help ensure that a criminal is found guilty of the crime he or she has committed, as it can supplement eye-witness evidence or act in its stead where a criminal act has no witnesses.
The utility of CCTV footage to police was explained by Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective, in an article published in The Herald on September 28, 2012.
Mr Bezzina stated, 'The real value in mass CCTV coverage of our city is in the investigation of crime, not the prevention. It adds to the crime-solving arsenal, allowing police to identify witnesses, offenders and patterns.
Having footage can help support or disprove the account of a witness. It can pinpoint what happened, where it happened and how many people took part. Where footage can show an accused person was elsewhere, it can be used to clear them of involvement in a crime. And, equally, it can be used to implicate offenders.'
On October 12, 2012, the ABC's opinion site, The Drum published a comment on CCTV surveillance by Andrew Tiedt, a criminal defence lawyer at Armstrong Legal in Sydney.
Mr Toedt stated, 'I have viewed recordings where an operator has seen something happen, has called the incident through to 000, and then followed the perpetrators as they ran from the scene. Police were guided to their location and promptly arrested and charged the appropriate people. Consequently, on balance, I think CCTV cameras are a good thing.'
In an opinion piece published in The Independent on March 17, 2008, Johann Hari gave an overview of some of the more news-worthy criminals who had recently been apprehended in Britain with the help of CCTV footage. Mr Hari wrote, 'The Ipswich Ripper was caught before he could murder even more young women because he was picked up on CCTV; the Soho nail-bomber was caught before he could blow up more black and gay people because he was captured on CCTV; and a few days ago at the Old Bailey, a man who shot a pregnant 22-year-old woman was banged up after being caught on camera.' What this list suggests is that CCTV often does not merely help in the apprehension of someone who has committed one crime; rather it protects the public from someone who is likely to go on offending again and again.
It has also been demonstrated that the lack of CCTV surveillance footage is often a direct impediment to the solving of a crime. At a recent suspicious death in Sydney, Kings Cross Police crime manager Detective Inspector Paul McDonald stated that a gap in CCTV coverage had left police without enough evidence to charge a suspect.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Murdoch explained that the attack took place in a blind spot where there were no CCTV cameras. The Assistant Commissioner stated, 'We don't have direct CCTV coverage of exactly where this incident happened. Coverage in that part of Victoria St unfortunately is not great.'
Instances such as this have been used by police to argue that the number of CCTV cameras should be increased in Australian cities.
3. Increased official use of CCTV cameras and better co-ordination will make them easier to monitor and access
It has been claimed that more official CCTV cameras will have a better crime-control effect because they will be better monitored and where something suspicious is detected police can be more quickly informed.
This point was made by Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective, in an article published in The Herald on September 28, 2012. Mr Bezzina has stated, 'Where cameras are being monitored rather than just recorded, police can be notified quickly and direct the necessary resources to an incident as it is happening.'
How closely cameras are monitored usually depends on agreements struck between local police and the councils that pay for systems. Reformers argue there needs to be far better co-ordination between council owned and run CCTV cameras and the law-enforcement agencies responsible for acting on the information these cameras supply.
This means that a larger proportion of police budgets needs to be directed toward paying those officers who monitor the footage from CCTV cameras.
There is also the capacity to give the wider community access to centrally collected images of suspects.
Law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom recently revealed the use of an app called Facewatch to track down low-level offenders. It utilizes footage showing people's faces, captured via surveillance cameras, to create a database of suspects. The database is then made publicly available to anyone who downloads the app with a mobile phone. In a bizarre and highly problematic use of crowd sourcing, members of the general public are asked to sift through the collection of photographs and send identifying information about anyone they may recognize to the police. "Scotland Yard says it has loaded its 'Facewatch' app with nearly 5,000 pictures of suspects wanted either in connection with low-level crime or riots.
4. Australia is lagging in the use of CCTV cameras
Promoters of the increased use of CCTV surveillance in this country have noted that compared to many other jurisdictions, especially Great Britain, Australia has a low number of cameras per head of population. This despite the fact that we are one of the most urbanised nations in the world and that many of the crimes CCTV cameras are intended to guard against, occur with particular frequency in urban areas.
The United Kingdom has made the most extensive use of CCTV as a crime prevention tool. There are some 30 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 6 million in the United Kingdom. The average British citizen is caught on CCTV cameras at least 300 times a day. London's Metropolitan Police Force has approximately 200,000 cameras installed around the capital. The United Kingdom has the highest number of CCTV cameras per head of population, about one camera to every 10 people.
However, the past five years have also seen considerable expansion in many other countries. Deployment of surveillance cameras in public is extensive throughout the European Union. A similar trend is evident in New Zealand and South Africa. Public systems also are in operation in Canada and the United States, where rapid expansion in CCTV and the use of biometric technology has occurred in the wake of the September 11 World Trade Centre attacks and associated concerns about internal security and terrorism. The largest CCTV system in the World is at Singapore Airport with more than 3,000 cameras.
Australia has not embraced CCTV with the same enthusiasm as the northern hemisphere. In Australia, the average citizen is likely to be captured on film a mere 15 times a day.
Former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, remarked after a visit to London in 2005, 'I have been mightily impressed with the great capacity of the British police within 24 hours to identify people. And these cameras, which of course are far more extensively used in Britain and other parts of the world other than in Australia, are certainly a real plus in catching people.'
5. CCTV surveillance does not pose a threat to privacy
The central privacy argument put in favour of law enforcement agencies being able to record images of people going about in public is that if these people are doing nothing wrong they should not object to being recorded.
It has also been noted that the actions recorded by CCTV cameras are already being performed in a public space and therefore the cameras are not an invasion of privacy.
Johann Hari, in an opinion piece published in The Independent on March 17, 2008, argued, 'If you walk through Central London you are picked up by nearly one thousand cameras. But you will only ever be picked up by a CCTV camera in a place where you could be seen by a random stranger. Walking through Central London, anyone can see you - and tens of thousands do. This isn't an intrusion into your privacy, because you aren't in private...
I am saying that these cameras are not in places where you hide: they are in public, where you are being seen by any number of people you will never know.'
On October 12, 2012, the ABC's opinion site, The Drum published a comment on CCTV surveillance by Andrew Tiedt, a criminal defence lawyer at Armstrong Legal in Sydney.
Mr Toedt stated, 'These cameras are a fundamentally different proposition to, for example, the Government's new powers to compel ISP's to store and make available a person's internet browsing habits.
A CCTV camera doesn't peer over your shoulder as your browse the internet, or as you undertake otherwise private activities. It records only what is done in public.
In this way, it sees nothing more than a police officer with two functional eyes could. It doesn't come into your home, nor does it record your private conversations
In this way, it sees nothing more than a police officer with two functional eyes could.'
But it is a fact of life today that our movements are recorded in so many places we go.
The utility of CCTV footage to police was explained by Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective, in an article published in The Herald on September 28, 2012.
Mr Bezzina stated, 'For the most part, it is for our safety. For example, most new blocks of flats have CCTV and just about every public building or place.
In public you are in full view. You should expect to be filmed.'
6. Protections exist to guard individual privacy
It has been claimed that all Australian states have laws and regulations relating to privacy.
In New South Wales, the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 was passed on 25 November 1998. The Act covers local government authorities as public sector agencies and as such is used by local councils when considering the establishment and implementation of CCTV.
The Act defines personal information as 'information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in material form) about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion'.
This definition includes the video record made by local councils, as people filmed are in many cases be people whose identity is apparent or could be reasonably ascertained, for example, people who work in the area and are filmed on a regular basis.
The Act requires that a public sector agency must not collect personal information unless:
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose which is directly related to a function or activity of the agency, and
(b) the collection of the information is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
It is also stipulated that a public sector agency must not collect personal information by any unlawful means.
The overall principals that govern the operation of CCTV surveillance are
i) the recording and retention of images should be undertaken fairly and lawfully;
ii) the purpose for which the information is being obtained is known;
iii) the information not be used for any other purpose than that proclaimed;
iv) people be aware that they may be subject to CCTV surveillance;
v) the CCTV surveillance should only be used to identify crimes occurring within the CCTV area;
vi) the CCTV surveillance should never be used to monitor or track individuals who have not obviously been involved in a crime;
vii) the CCTV surveillance should not be used for general intelligence gathering; and
viii) the owners of the scheme are known and accountable for its operation.
Arguments against Australia installing more closed circuit TV cameras
1. CCTV cameras have no significant deterrent effect
It has been claimed that CCTV cameras have little, if any deterrent effect.
Dr James Martin, a criminologist at the school of political and social inquiry at Monash University, has stated, 'I recently spent 300 hours in CCTV control rooms around Australia and my observations suggest the technology has limitations in preventing the crimes that disturb us most, random assaults and murders, even premeditated murders.'
One of the limitations of public security cameras is that their locations are advertised. Rather than prevent crime, it is claimed that premeditated criminals merely take measures to avoid being detected by these cameras.
Dr Martin has argued, 'A well-lit car park or a store-front equipped with CCTV make relatively unattractive targets. Far better to select property that is less well protected or, in the case of more serious interpersonal crimes, simply wait until the potential victim moves out of the vision of cameras.'
It has further been argued that where a crime is not premeditated, CCTV cameras have no deterrent effect at all. Dr Martin has claimed, 'When a fight breaks out between people affected by alcohol or aggressive machismo, they are unlikely to be calculating the likelihood of being recorded by a distant camera. When offenders are uncaring of the consequences, CCTV has no deterrent value.'
In an opinion piece published on September 28, 2012, James Campbell, a Herald Sun opinion editor, noted, 'The marginal effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime has been well known for at least a decade. In 2002 a British Home Office review of studies into the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime found the overall reduction in crime in areas with CCTV was only 4 per cent. Half the studies examined showed CCTV had no effect on crime at all, and all showed it had no effect on violent crime.'
The effectiveness of CCTV cameras in solving crimes has also been disputed.
A study has revealed that in London, just one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras in 2008.
David Vaile, the vice-chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, has stated, 'You can still be murdered, raped, bashed, robbed or harassed...and...walking in front of the CCTV camera doesn't necessarily protect you from that.'
2. CCTV cameras are costly to install and maintain
Critics have noted that the cost of installing and maintaining CCTV cameras is high and is not justified by the results they achieve.
Between 1994 and 1997, the British Home Office made available œ38 million to fund 585 CCTV schemes. Between 1999 and 2003, they made available a further œ170 million for CCTV schemes. However, recent report from the London Metropolitan Police said that only one crime a year was solved for every thousand cameras in operation. Authorities are said to be questioning whether the œ500 million of public money spent on installing their extensive CCTV system has provided value in the fight against crime.
Over the period 1996 to 1998 CCTV accounted for more than three-quarters of total spending on crime prevention by the British Home Office. Each pound of Home Office funding is matched by local authorities.
The cost of CCTV as a crime prevention measure includes not only the initial investment but also the ongoing maintenance and running costs. For this reason, any cost effectiveness analysis must account for these factors, in particular the staff time required to monitor the cameras. Westminster City Council has estimated the costs of their CCTV system as follows: the capital cost for each camera is about œ20,000; the annual revenue costs are around œ12,000 per camera.
Australian research conducted in 2002 refers to the following examples of annual operational cost for local government CCTV systems - Sydney $900,000, Melbourne $400,000, Adelaide $310,000, Ipswich $444,000, Fairfield $340,000, and Toowoomba $85,000.
The City of Sydney had the highest estimated ongoing costs at $900,000 per annum. The City of Sydney CCTV system is monitored 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Other locations adopt a more modest monitoring regime, with designated staff only deployed for 'hot' times like Friday and Saturday nights and for special events. This reduction of monitoring brings down costs, but also has consequences for the effectiveness of the CCTV system to enable immediate intervention (and ideally apprehension) when a crime is occurring.
As of 2012, Melbourne City Council has installed 53 CCTV cameras in the CBD that cost the council roughly $500,000 a year to run.
While these costs highlight major expenditure, they tend not to reveal the costs over the life of a CCTV system. Those systems that were installed in the mid-1990s will have invariably undergone major upgrades. Cameras will have been replaced, new control rooms may have been built, data storage systems overhauled and damaged signage advertising the existence of the cameras replaced. CCTV systems, once installed, are rarely disassembled. Consequently, budgets should be based on costs over decades rather than shorter periods.
3. Improved lighting is more effective as a crime prevention measure
There has been research to suggest that improving lighting may be a more effective and less expensive means of achieving crime reduction than installing CCTV cameras.
In 1992 street lighting was significantly improved in the English towns of Dudley and Stoke-on-Trent to observe if it resulted in a reduction in crime relative to the control areas were lighting was not improved.
In Dudley, the upgrade of existing lighting resulted in a 23 per cent reduction in the prevalence of all crime, and a 41 per cent reduction in the incidence of all crime. In the control areas, the prevalence and incidence of all crimes showed insignificant decreases of 3 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Changes in the experimental area were found to be significantly different to changes in the control area. Personal crime, burglary and outside theft/vandalism experienced the greatest percentage reductions in prevalence, while vehicle, property and personal crime experienced the greatest reductions in incidence.
In Stoke, the prevalence for all crime categories except burglary decreased significantly after improvements to lighting. Personal crime, outside theft/vandalism and vehicle crime experienced the greatest reductions of 52 per cent, 40 per cent and 37 per cent respectively. The adjacent and control areas also experienced crime reductions, but these were not found to be significant.
Cost benefit analyses suggest that improved lighting achieves greater gains than CCTV surveillance and at far less cost. There were 641 crimes prevented in Dudley during the experimental year. This amounted to a saving of œ136,266 in property losses alone and œ237, 794 when all tangible losses were included. A cost-benefit analysis found that these savings more than paid off the full capital costs of the intervention in one year.
Like Dudley, the savings from crimes prevented in Stoke also paid off the full capital costs of the lighting intervention in one year. With 266 crimes prevented in the area during the intervention period, a saving of œ65, 892 in property losses and œ103,495 in all tangible losses was achieved.
4. The monitoring of CCTV footage is complex and not always well-performed
It has been noted that monitoring CCTV footage is complex and labour- and time-intensive.
Dr James Martin, a criminologist at the school of political and social inquiry at Monash University, has stated, 'The immediate challenge when monitoring CCTV is information overload. With so many cameras and crowds of people passing by, identifying where trouble may occur is prohibitively complex.'
Dr Martin has further noted, 'The absence of sound greatly compounds this problem...Is that man talking to a girlfriend or intimidating a vulnerable stranger? Are those two men about to start throwing punches or are they simply mucking around? In the absence of more detailed information, camera operators are unable to make an informed judgment.'
A recent overview of CCTV monitoring practices in the United Kingdom has found a variety of significant problems.
There are dramatic differences across control rooms related to the management of systems and cultures across operators.
CCTV managers can come from a range of backgrounds and their CCTV responsibilities can form only part of their role. The lack of effective management in control rooms has lead operators to develop their own styles of monitoring and work patterns. There is inadequate training of CCTV operators and although the Security Industry Authority licensing regime has been implemented from 2006 there is no obligation for operators to get the license which leads to a range of abilities across CCTV staff. Training can be in-house and result in bad habits being passed from one operator to another and compounding the ineffective monitoring practices present in a control room.
A study of surveillance camera monitoring on the Gold Coast has found that 83.57% of an operator's shift during the observational period was dedicated to activities other than specific monitoring of incidents, for example, paper work and answering telephones.
Similarly, business owners in Skinner St, South Grafton, New South Wales, an area which has been plagued with vandalism, have pointed out that investing in CCTV technology was useless if police did not have the resources to monitor or review the footage.
Thrifty Hardware in South Grafton manager Andrew Smith has had windows at the front of his shop kicked in three times in the past four months. After the last incident the police waited 18 days before reviewing the footage.
5. CCTV cameras are a violation of individuals' privacy
It has been argued that the proliferation of CCTV cameras is a violation of individuals' privacy.
The Australian Privacy Foundation argues that knowing they are under observation alters the behaviour of even the most innocent of subjects and that this restriction on the free enjoyment of public places should only be allowed where there is a demonstrable benefit to be gained.
Bruce Schneier in an opinion piece published in Wired on May 18, 2006, similarly argued that being under observation alters how most people speak and behave and is thus an infringement of their liberty.
Mr Schneier wrote, 'How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanour has changed, and our words are subtly altered.
This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us.'
Mr Schneier added, 'Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.'
Henry Porter in an article published in The Guardian on October 3, 2012, argued that the enhanced capabilities of new high definition surveillance cameras made people immediately recognisable wherever these cameras were placed.
Mr Porter stated, 'That means no privacy in the shopping mall, on the train... at the match, in the street, in restaurants or pubs.'
Paul Chadwick, the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, in a Law Week address delivered in 2006 explained that without clear and demonstrable justification the State had no right to intrude on the privacy of the individual.
Mr Chadwick stated, 'The citizen is not under any onus to explain why he or she does not want to disclose aspects of his or her life to government. Government bears the onus of explaining that it has a legitimate reason to know particular details. 'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear', directed at each member of the public, should be turned around and directed at government as: "No legitimate reason to know, no legitimate reason to ask".'
6. CCTV footage can be misused
Critics of CCTV footage complain that those filmed have no control over how that footage is used and further that the footage is susceptible to misuse.
Christine Bartell, in an opinion piece published on ArticleClick.com, argued, 'The video captured by surveillance cameras becomes susceptible to misuse and abuse by viewers. For instance, the video can be used to discriminate against people and for voyeurism.
In the age of the Internet, this is another big deal, as can be seen by all of the "funny" Vimeo videos out there. I doubt the subjects would find them as knee-slappingly funny as everyone else.'
In February 2010 it was reported that the closed circuit cameras monitored at the Darwin Police Station had been turned off because it was alleged that members of the police force had used the cameras to ogle girls.
In an internal email sent by Acting Senior Sergeant Brendan Muldoon to senior police and published in the Courier Mail on February 5, 2010, the Acting Senior Sergeant stated, 'It didn't take that long and somebody has already used the CCTV system inappropriately.
'This occurred at Darwin Police Station where a member or members have used the cameras to check out a group of girls, the footage is very damaging! While this is being investigated, the CCTV system has been turned off at Darwin Police Station.'
The Australian Privacy Foundation has serious reservations about the current use of CCTV footage and has argued that 'Access to images and video, both live and recorded, must be tightly controlled and that any security breaches must be acted upon promptly and effectively.'
Critics of the growing use of CCTV footage are concerned that access is not adequately controlled and that breaches of codes governing the appropriate use of this footage are not always followed up.
Stephen Blanks, secretary of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties, has stated, 'If people thought that the police were using these systems just to carry out general surveillance then public support for these systems would be rapidly eroded. We've seen cases where police have unfortunately misused CCTV material or have attempted to destroy CCTV material which exposes police misconduct and we do need a system which gives the public confidence that the police themselves are not in total control of the system.'
Further implications
The increased use of CCTV surveillance is generally a popular measure among the electorate. Despite some researchers' reservations about its effectiveness, these cameras appear to increase the community's sense of safety. They are thus a popular measure among governments seeking to appear to be taking action against crime. However, before Australia invests further in this technology, calls have been made for us to put legislative protections in place and to investigate the circumstances under which this form of surveillance is most effective in preventing crime and prosecuting criminals.
In November 2003 Dr. Dean Wilson, a lecturer in Criminal Justice and Criminology, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University and Dr. Adam Sutton, a senior lecturer in the Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne, concluded, 'As CCTV systems continue to expand, there needs to be a more thorough investigation into the desirability of statutory regulation.
Currently there is no specific state or territory legislation covering CCTV in public areas...
Statutory regulation has the potential to increase the accountability of CCTV systems and may increase public confidence in their operation as a result.
More Australian research is needed on the ways public space CCTV is used and its impacts on crime, perceptions of safety and civil liberties. Such research may prove that CCTV can be effective in reducing the incidence of some types of crime. However, it remains to be established in what locations and under what conditions. CCTV should also continue to be assessed against other crime prevention measures that might produce superior or equivalent outcomes.
Imperfect knowledge about the effects of CCTV does not justify jettisoning the approach altogether, particularly when one considers that, in the absence of such systems, ordinary citizens may become even more inclined to abandon public space.'
These criminologists are arguing that before Australia extends CCTV surveillance we should research its effectiveness so that we know what crime control outcomes we can realisably expect from these devices.
Current research suggests these devices do not prevent crime; however, they may have a function in criminal detection and apprehension.
We need to ensure that the financial investment Australia makes in these devices is commensurate with the benefits we can reasonably expect from them. Authorities must ensure these devices are placed where they will be of most use and that there are appropriate monitoring systems in place so that the potential value of these devices is realised.
Beyond this, civil liberties must be protected. Australia needs specific, perhaps federal laws governing the use of CCTV surveillance. Its use has to be transparent, justified and regulated so that its potentially negative impact on citizens' rights is minimised.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
Herald-Sun, October 10, 2012, page 7, news item by John Masanauskas, `Don't be camera-shy'. (Online heading: Lord Mayor Robert Doyle's call for more security cams angers Greens)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/lord-mayor-robert-doyles-call-for-more-security-cams-angers-greens/story-e6frf7kx-1226492469416
Herald-Sun, October 10, 2012, page 32, editorial, `A blurred vision'.
The Age, October 5, 2012, page 15, comment by James Martin, `Cameras' eye on the streets is little more than pie in the sky'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cameras-eye-on-the-streets-is-little-more-than-pie-in-the-sky-20121004-2725n.html
Herald-Sun, October 12, 2012, page 18, comment by Andrew Rule, `Smile, you're on candid camera'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/smile-youre-on-candid-camera/story-e6frfhqf-1226493931232