City
Video Surveillance in Public Spaces
Last week, when a hail of bullets were fired at a moving car at Yonge & Shuter, just a few steps away from the Eaton Center, I was instantly reminded of the horrific 2005 Boxing Day shooting.
Yesterday, Toronto Police Services issued a press release regarding last week's shooting, including still images (image1, image2) acquired from nearby private surveillance cameras that they hope will help them identify and apprehend possible suspects.
Would police have any leads were it not for the video footage? I have little doubt that the media will we be hailing the use of surveillance cameras should these videos lead to arrests and convictions. But should the police have their own cameras mounted on street corners and other public spaces?
Does the public like the idea? A Globe and Mail poll conducted earlier this year suggests that the public is supportive.
Toronto Police have been asking for permanent video surveillance cameras to be placed in the downtown core in hopes that they will both deter crime and assist in the capture of suspects. The Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has already committed $2million to the Toronto Police closed-circuit television (CCTV) project. Fights, stabbings, and shootings in various downtown areas including the club district are particularly problematic and happen far too often. But where are appropriate locations for the cameras, and should we be concerned about our privacy being compromised?
I spoke briefly with Detective John Babiar of 51 Division, who is heading the Yonge/Shuter shooting investigation. When asked about possible future locations for police surveillance cameras, Babiar was unable to comment. He did, however, suggest that with cameras already in malls, banks, and many other privately owned locations, we're already on camera in our everyday lives and when we enter into public spaces.
City property, including City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square already have surveillance systems in place, funded by the city budget. City if Toronto spokesperson Brad Ross assured me that these systems adhere to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and are only intended to maintain the safety and security of staff and visitors. Police occasionally request footage taken at city property entrances, exits, and parking lots. For the most part, footage is recorded digitally and anything older than 30 days is overwritten.
In addition to the Toronto Police program proposal for CCTV cameras in public spaces, and according to the most recently published minutes of the Toronto Police Services Board, another program involving mobile video cameras is already in the works. An ongoing pilot program currently has in-car cameras in 18 marked patrol cars. A report on the pilot program is expected in March of 2007, and Toronto Police hope to have 450 cars equipped (at a cost of $11million) thereafter.
We also recently saw the installation of cameras on beginning on TTC surface vehicles.
All of these projects make a lot of sense to me, since they likely will act as crime deterrents and enhance employee and public safety. To be perfectly honest, I'm not particularly concerned about additional cameras in public spaces. If I were a victim of crime, video evidence that would help convict those responsible would be welcome. As long as implementation and use of the systems are ethical and carried out as proposed on page 76 of the draft policy, the thought doesn't bother me.
The City policy states that, 'proper video surveillance, where deemed necessary, is one of the most effective means of helping keep City facilities and properties operating in a safe, secure, and privacy protective manner.'
Do my fellow Torontonians feel the same?
(surveillance camera photo: Moe)
Discussion
18 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
But why do the police, the city and other public entities not make these camera feeds accessible over the web to the public that pays for them?
As the police are so fond of saying, if they are not abusing the privilege, then they have nothing to hide.
Because cars kill more people than guns do, I think the police should focus the lens on the streets. We should have red light cameras at more intersections and photo radar giving out tickets by mail. Just this past weekend two pedestrians were killed. I think it is time to put an end to the carnage.
And our bags get searched at airports so why not when we enter a store or randomly on the street?
I've always been against cameras in public places because my consent to be filmed is implied not given. In private places like banks or malls, I have a choice. I dont <i>have</i> to use a bank or shop at a mall if I dont like the idea of being filmed.
But as a taxpayer, I own the street just as much as anyone else and should have a say on the filming of the street.
These convictions faded somewhat once I moved to London, England. One is on camera there everywhere at all times.
If we give in to cameras, it should be clear to all people that they might be on camera. If we don't get individual consent, they should at least be clearly informed that their image may be recorded and used by the authorities at any time.
Privacy is important to democracy, we should be vigilant.
Just because you don't care about your rights doesn't mean you get the sell the rest of us down the river.
There is an enormous difference between being in public and being under surveilance. Sure, you're out on the sidewalk and you can see everyone and everyone can see you, but they're not recording you from a bird's eye view for future scrutiny and analysis and profiling, and they can't reconstruct your every movement from the moment you parked your car or stepped off the bus.
Brokenengine - "If you conduct yourself like a reasonable human being..." is just rephrasing "If you're innocent, you won't mind us searching your house".
It doesn't matter if you're innocent, or you "have nothing to hide". This is about protecting the innocent from unwaranteed government scrutiny.
You seriously think these two things are even remotely the same? This is a lame argument. What I do in the privacy of my home has nothing to do with what I do out on a crowded street.
That's why my stand against cameras has softened over the years....its one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My feeling these days is that they are inevitable. I just hope that people see them as a "necessary evil" and recognize their potential to do harm as well as good.
I prefer that individual property owners own cameras that cover their little bit of the street. If necessary, police can ask them for the tape. But because surveillance of the entire street is split up amongst multiple camera owners, there would be less potential for abuse.
Given the choice between more cops on the street and cameras, I'd go with the cops. Why? Well, have you ever seen a camera chase down a suspect, or take down an armed attacker? Neither have I. The cameras can't point everywhere, and the response time of a cop near the scene will always be higher than one 3 minutes away when the dispatcher calls.
And cops can be held accountable, you can see them in action. You often aren't aware of the cameras around you, you can't tell who's zooming in on whom, where that footage is going...
Camera's + Bruce Willis scare me...