CCTV: An Attack on Ones Privacy - Case Study Example

CCTV: An Attack on One’s Privacy by INTRODUCTION According to Davenport (2007), and based on information from the London Evening Standard, London alone has 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 boroughs with costs of installation reaching £200M. The CCTV, or closed circuit television, is “a television system that transmits images on a ‘closed loop’ basis, where images are only available to those directly connection to the transmission system” (“Closed Circuit Television” 2000). The term “video surveillance” refers to the “surveillance by a closed circuit television for direct visual monitoring and/or recording of activities on premises or in a place” (“Closed Circuit Television” 2000).Now that certain issues have been raised against its use, it is time to ponder on these issues and critically analyze whether the CCTV is indeed living up to its own ideal purpose of preventing crimes or simply impinging upon one’s privacy. Two questions must be asked: The first is, “Does the CCTV really help prevent and reduce crimes?” The second question is, “Are the privacy issues raised against the CCTV justifiable?” Current claims tell us that the CCTV is not effective in preventing and reducing crimes, and that it violates an individual’s privacy. This discussion is meaningful because it will try to weigh both the claims against the use of the CCTV and those in favor of it. Despite the fact that the CCTV may indeed help reduce crime and protect people’s lives, the information from it may be used against the person captured in the video and may abuse his authority over a particular place, and thus the CCTV represents an attack on one’s right to privacy. ARGUMENTS CLAIMING THAT THE CCTV REPRESENTS AN ATTACK ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY Information from the CCTV might be used against the person appearing in its file Information obtained from the CCTV might be used against the person whose image is captured on file. According to the Public Law, Planning and Environment Team of New South Wales in Australia, there will always be “some likelihood that during the use of CCTV that personal information [other than that for which the CCTV was originally installed] will be collected” (“Privacy in an age” 2011). The rules governing CCTV and data protection state that “personal data shall be obtained [from the CCTV] only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes” (“Privacy and CCTV” 2012). Personal data or personal information refers to “information or an opinion about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion” (“Privacy in an age” 2011). This means that the personal information that must be obtained from the CCTV as well as from further investigations that arise from such captured images must only be the personal information intended for the purpose upon which the CCTV was installed and the captured images were obtained. This means that if one installs a CCTV at the lobby of a public building for the purpose of detecting in advance any suspected burglary, then such CCTV system must not be used to expose personal information regarding an individual’s private life or sexual relationships even if he or she is caught on CCTV kissing someone. Such act, although possibly worthy of media attention, cannot be used or published because the original purpose of the installed CCTV was for the detection of burglary and not to capture images involving personal relationships. Thus, according to the law, personal data or information must therefore be used only if it fulfills the purpose for which the CCTV was installed. The problem with the aforementioned principle is that although there is a rule governing the use of captured images on CCTV, still such personal information may be used for other purposes such as the exposure of one’s sexual exploits, as in the example above. Thus, despite existing laws concerning one’s privacy, captured images on a CCTV intended to detect theft and robbery may still be used to create gossip, humiliate someone, or simply to expose embarrassing facts and information. Moreover, according to Baram (2007), personal information in CCTVs is “known” to government officials, and so the government is therefore in control of one’s own privacy. Thus, the use of CCTV clearly impinges upon one’s privacy. The use of the CCTV undermines or abuses the authority of the person who happens to be in a particular public place The CCTV undermines or abuses an individual’s authority over his own personal space and privacy because although the person with authority over the particular premises has given his consent, the individual occupant who is in such premises also has authority over his own privacy and this authority regardless of the authority of the owner of the premises, and this right of the individual occupant right is often compromised (“CCTV Security Camera” 2012). An individual’s right to his own personal space and privacy extends to public places as well, and not only to those places where one reasonably expects privacy like the bathroom and the motel room. Based on the General Guidelines on video surveillance on the WECU Surveillance.com website based in Alberta in Canada, “Covert surveillance may be illegal when the person with authority over the premises has not consented [to covert video surveillance]” (“CCTV Security Camera” 2012). The preceding statement implies that the only person who has the right and authority to determine whether covert video surveillance should be conducted in the premises or not is the person who has authority over such premises – and certainly not the individual who occupies the place or who just happens to pass by. This clearly means that when the individual steps out of the premises over which he has authority on his privacy, he loses all right to his own privacy. It is true that an exception to the rule is a place where the individual has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” like the bathroom, the motel room or changing rooms (“CCTV Security Camera” 2012). However, considering that basically the person who has authority over the premises has an almost absolute right to determine whether to put up covert video surveillance or not, there is a chance that even bathrooms, motel rooms, changing rooms and private spaces may be covertly monitored by a CCTV. Thus, the CCTV violates an individual’s right to his own privacy on two counts: it does so when the individual is in a place whose owner has agreed to put up covert video surveillance, and it does the same when the owner of a particular place unknowingly and secretly extends video surveillance to the bathrooms and similar private areas. ARGUMENTS CLAIMING THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF THE CCTV OUTWEIGH ITS PRIVACY ISSUES The use of the CCTV is helpful in detecting crimes Despite the arguments concerning the privacy issues of the use of CCTV in public places, some people claim that the CCTV is helpful in detecting crimes. According to a report by Segal (2009), a good example of such a claim is the fact that a number of people like Jeanne Thomas of Boynton Beach, Florida were able to watch their homes from the office and report to the authorities a theft that was happening at the moment of viewing. People therefore make claims based on such cases that the CCTV is useful in detecting crimes. However, the CCTV is not as useful as people think when it comes to detecting, preventing and reducing crimes. According to the chief of the police department of Oakland, California in a report by Baram (2007), “There is no conclusive way to establish [that] the presence of video surveillance resulted in the prevention or reduction of crime.” Perhaps, according to Hughes (2009), research is lacking in this field or CCTVs simply do not work. Moreover, the reality behind CCTV surveillance is that it “provides little or no improvement in security” and that “officers do not bring criminals to justice even after they are caught on camera and identified.” Most of all, based on the report by Davenport (2007), “most [CCTV] images are not…helpful” in preventing crimes, and that in the United Kingdom, Brent police have the highest clear-up rate of crimes at 25.9% despite the fact that the borough has only 164 CCTV cameras. Somehow, this implies that crime prevention does not depend on CCTVs and that images of certain criminals are not that helpful either in preventing the crime from happening or even in apprehending the criminal. Thus, the advantages of CCTV cameras cannot possibly outweigh its privacy issues. The CCTV can protect people’s lives Despite the issues concerning privacy, the use of CCTV cameras is also believed by many to be an effective way of protecting people’s lives. In fact, CCTV cameras are put up in crime hot spots, waiting places for transportation, and “places frequented by potentially at-risk groups such as the elderly and young people” (“Closed Circuit Television” 2000). Nevertheless, there is no particular research study that confirms that the CCTV indeed protects people’s lives. Moreover, according to Davenport (2007), even if the CCTV may work well to protect lives and prevent crimes in some places, it certainly is not doing well in the United Kingdom. In fact, it is believed that in the UK, “there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a better crime clear-up rate.” Davenport (2007) further added that Wadsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets has 824 and Greenwich has 747 but the police in these three boroughs failed to reach London’s average 21% crime rate clear-up rate. CONCLUSION AND RESTATEMENT OF STANCE There may be claims that the CCTV helps reduce crimes and helps protect people’s lives but besides the fact that there is no research study that proves that the CCTV is indeed helpful in protecting people’s lives, there have also been claims that it cannot prevent or reduce crimes effectively. Indeed, the CCTV represents an attack on one’s privacy. First, the CCTV allows anyone to possibly obtain from the captured images personal information that may be used to destroy someone’s reputation. Moreover, the CCTV allows someone to violate one’s privacy in a public place and places him under the control and close monitoring of the one who has authority over such a place. The CCTV is therefore a means of attack on and violation of an individual’s privacy and should is therefore not recommended for use. REFERENCES Baram, M. (2007), “Eye on the City: Do Cameras Reduce Crime?” [online] Available at: [Accessed 28 July 2012]. “CCTV Security Camera/CCTV Surveillance Camera Laws.” (2012), [online] Available at: [Accessed 27 July 2012]. Davenport, J. (2007), “Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved.” [online] Available at: [Accessed 29 July 2012] Hughes, M. (2009), “CCTV in the spotlight: one crime solved for every 1,000 cameras: Civil liberties campaigners condemn ineffectiveness of ‘surveillance state.’” [online] Available at: [Accessed 29 July 2012] “Privacy and CCTV: A guide to the Privacy Act for businesses, agencies and organizations.” (2012), [online] Available at: [Accessed 27 July 2012] “Privacy in an age of CCTV and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act: E-Alert April 2011.” (2011), [online] Available at: [Accessed 27 July 2012] Segal, K. (2009), “Woman watches home invasion on webcam.” [online] Available at: [Accessed 28 July 2012] Read More