Society’s Ethical Stance on The Use of CCTV in Public Places
Introduction
CCTV stands for Closed-Circuit Television is also known as surveillance camera. Most of the cameras are installed in public places and some of them are hidden. Public places are where the general public is allowed access without any legal barriers. The most obvious example of this would be outdoors, on public-access streets and highways, but this would also apply to such places as shopping mall, schools, office and others. Essentially, this is the state deciding to place CCTV cameras on their own property.
Purposes of Installing CCTV
Some of purposes of CCTV are to monitor for traffic, to monitor crimes, as to prevent crime from happening, and to facilitate the capture of the guilty after the fact. According to Coretta Phillips (2010), a common goal of most CCTV systems has been the prevention on crime and disorder through deterrence. The CCTV also help catch people who commit crimes, scare off somebody who might commit a crime and as well as to make people feel safe. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2006), written by Jerry Ratcliffe, CCTV “seeks to change offender perception so the offender believes if he commits a crime, he will be caught.” Usually it is true because with having these cameras, will sort of warn the criminals and that might keep them away from acting their plan. But, the reaction from the public also says that having CCTV and having security guard are not something that can be used independently. Both the security techniques are compliment on each other and should be use together. This is because a security guard might not be able to observe one area for the whole time. As Groombridge and Murji (1994) have warned “CCTV can only ever be a tool, it is not a panacea”. However, the camera recording will definitely offers some good help.
Society and CCTV
In Malaysia, the installation of CCTV in public areas is rising due to the rising statistics in crimes. As according to Hamidi Achin (2008), it is clear the Government is serious about curbing crime when previous Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s announcement those CCTVs will be compulsory in crime-prone areas. But somehow, the awareness of the society is still low and because of the number of CCTV is high; some of them are not monitored. Thus, their effectiveness depends on public awareness of the camera, as well as individual offender awareness. A study by Honess and Charman (1999), published in “A Review of CCTV Evaluations: Crime Reduction Effects and Attitudes Toward Its Use” found that 45 percent of people surveyed in a town center did not believe surveillance cameras were effective in reducing fear of crime. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the theory behind the effectiveness of surveillance cameras hinges on the rational thinking of potential criminals, who might be mentally ill or under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Fewer studies of video surveillance have been conducted in the United States than in some other countries, such as the United Kingdom, making it difficult to draw any firm conclusions about its effect on crime prevention. However, studies of closed-circuit television camera systems in Los Angeles and San Francisco, Webb and Laycock (2001), the results of which were published in 2005, revealed little or no statistically significant change in the level of crime before and after the cameras were installed.
Nevertheless, there exist various schemes both locally, national and international which aims at protecting the public from the CCTV cameras. The 2006 privacy international report, states that they are mainly concerned with the privacy protection of the public. According to them, they have stipulated the rise of rules and regulations which aims at protecting individual right and freedom as well as regulate the use and output information captured by such systems.
Existing regulations, schemes or frameworks which aim at protecting the rights of individuals in public include the Data Protection Act 1998, European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Article 8, Council of Europe’s guiding principles for video surveillance, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17 and Private Security Industry Act 2001 to name a few.
Implications/Ethical Stances of Society on CCTV
Some part of our society feel that the uses of video surveillance is as a remedy to crime and disorder in public places, while some of them see it as an invasion of personal privacy. Despite privacy issue in the positive feedback shows that some of the public have no problem on being recorded. To some who do not agree, they feel that with hundreds of CCTV being installed lately have invasion to their privacy. This issue comes into account especially with the installation of CCTV at park and playground. They feel awkward when knowing someone out there is watching them having good time with their family. They also feel that they have their right for privacy especially in office. The right to privacy is basically the right to be left alone and to live the private aspects of one’s life without being subjected to unwarranted, or undesired, publicity or public disclosure.
Let say, in a scenario where person A wants to observe the activity of person B as maybe person B is suspected to have commit a crime. It is okay if the person B is found guilty, but if the accusation is wrong then that would be unethical as person A has invaded the person B’s privacy. So it is quite hard to judge and to tell whether this CCTV usage is ethical or not.
A few studies of CCTV in public places have shown that people react to video surveillance in few ways. According to David Dunning (2010), the majorities of people under video surveillance generally has a reduced fear of crime and feel safer, provided they actually know that they are being watched. Psychological effect on public also happen which makes the public feel safer if they know the area was under CCTV surveillance This may, in turn, cause more people to use the area under surveillance, increasing natural surveillance. However, a sizeable minority of people, about one-third, according to the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, felt uncomfortable under video surveillance, concluding that the purpose of CCTV was to spy on people and some other factors are:
a) Lack of privacy protection: There are two kinds of people associated with this point which are, the guilty people, if you commit a crime, or suspected of one, you are a liability to the state, therefore have the right to invade your privacy for investigation. Another kind is the law abiding people, when they are in public they know that they are being watched, therefore CCTV cameras do not fringe the rights of privacy. Some may argue that People who obey the law should have nothing to fear from these cameras.
b) Property right: the public areas belong to the state and therefore they have the right to put CCTV cameras anywhere they please.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that even though the surveillance installed in public places provide people with both positive and negative consequences and some which however are stack and potentially irreversible, the public has the right to debate or question the surveillance, about privacy, ethics, human rights; its impact on social inclusion and exclusion, power, empowerment, whether the running systems can be held to account. The most important thing the public should keep in mind is that it is possible to regulate surveillance, to keep its negative effects under control as there are many laws and codes of practice for protecting the privacy of the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment