Privacy in the 21st Century
There has been a lot of talk recently about privacy. Some of it deals with companies on the Internet, some with video
surveillance, some with things like identity theft. This month as a break
from the previous two months' concentration on the blank media levy, I'll add my $0.02 worth to the
topic of video surveillance cameras in hopes that some of you will gain more of an understanding of
what the brouhaha is all about.
Her in "Lotus Land" (British Columbia for those unfamiliar with the term) we have what used to be a sleepy little town called Kelowna, best known for its
apple orchards. More recently it has become a haven for retirees from the Prairies as well as something of a hub for the Okanagan area of the province, so has
grown somewhat. Along with the increased population of older folks has come a general increase in the population of the area including some of the more
unsavory characters who tend to prey on people; the purse snatchers, druggies, prostitutes, pimps, and general lay-abouts.
In downtown Kelowna, a block off the main drag, is a major bus exchange.
This area became a haven for some of the unsavory characters and Kelowna police in their infinite wisdom decided that just patrolling the area on foot or in cars was not enough, so they
installed a remotely monitored video surveillance camera. Rightly or wrongly, the
camera seems to have done the trick to a certain extent. The area where
the camera is has seen a reduction in crime, and the general taxpayer has decided that they like the idea and encourage the police to put more in.
(The camera is on a pole between the clock and the red car)
Along comes the Canadian Privacy Commissioner saying that such cameras are an invasion of privacy and the police should remove them.
The controversy resulted in many people writing letters to the editor and
calling to local talk-show radio. Opinions ranged from "if you're
not a criminal, why do you care if somebody records what you do in
public?" to "I don't care about the crooks, you can't keep a
record of where a law-abiding citizen is 'just in case.'" So what is the
problem and is there anything that can be done to satisfy both the privacy
advocates and the police?
As with many problems of today, the most obvious aspect is not generally the key one. In the case of the
camera in Kelowna, the bus-using public notes that the
crime is no longer where the cameras are - it has moved on to someone else's turf and this is a "good thing".
They don't seem to consider the invasion of their privacy as significant.
On the other hand, people from outside the local area (lots of tourists
enjoy Kelowna year-round) don't see the obvious benefit since they were
not likely there when there was a problem; they only see that Kelowna
police now have a record that they were there. The concept of giving up privacy (in a public place???) conjures up visions of Orwell's 1984 and even the latest
Spielberg film, "Minority Report" with its
eye-scanning hardware everywhere, tied into police and advertiser's databases and impossible to thwart without eye transplants.
What is needed is a solution that both the police and the privacy advocates can live
with. Let me propose a scenario that might do the trick.
One of the major objections to cameras is the concept that someone might be recorded as having been in a particular
place at a particular time, when being
there is at best an embarrassment, and at worst makes them culpable in some crime; and
that this recorded fact might surface years later.
To identify a
reasonable solution we need to look at what is already acceptable, both in
the eyes of the privacy advocates and the general public. The beat cop, in
sufficient numbers, provides a similar level of deterrent to crime, and if
a crime does take place, they know how to provide proper evidence. What
characteristics of cops make them acceptable where an all-seeing (and
remembering) camera is not? Well, for one, the eyes of the cop can only really look in one direction at
once. For another, cops generally don't take notes of things unless
something "interesting" (in a police sense) has happened, and while they
generally have excellent memories compared to the average person, few have
truly "photographic" memories and even those who do have no
ability to "print" the image out so others can see it, they must
use description instead. Most police must use a notebook, and the courts
will accept them as evidence and allow their use in "refreshing"
a memory.
How can we make a camera system which mimics the beat cop while giving the
cost effectiveness of the use of technology? What is a reasonable alternative (to the costly cop on every corner) in light of privacy advocates and technology?
Remember, we are only dealing here with
video surveillance of public places, not private or business premises - they are a different thing.
Let's add some of the characteristics of a cop to the cameras to level the playing field a bit.
As noted, cops generally
have a good memory but use a notebook to back it up; a notebook which can be entered into evidence if/when required. Cops don't generally remember
everything about everyone who comes near them when they are on their beat. Cops generally don't look everywhere at all times, or have the ability to recall
with 100% accuracy what went on five years ago when their back was turned.
So create a camera system where all the images come to a central site where one or more people monitor things in real time. Any system that does not have real-time
monitoring can not have any similarities to a "real" cop on the beat, so outlaw it.
The camera system may have several monitors running at any one time - roughly
equivalent to the very wide angle of vision the average person has. On the
other hand, no person has 100% peripheral vision, so having a monitor for every camera is not an option. Limit the number of monitors, and make the images
come up for a few seconds in completely random order unless an "attention" button is pushed signifying that something has caught the attention of the
watching person.
The camera system must have some method of storing its images for a period of time. Many
current systems store all cameras' images for periods ranging from days to forever but no
cop could possibly remember 100% detail from all activity around them on a beat, so we need to change the way cameras "remember" too. Let's set the system
to record the most recent 5 minutes from all cameras unless the attention button is pressed, in which case the cameras all record
that 5 minutes plus the next
10 minutes onto permanent storage, and any single selected camera (changed at any time) will continue recording onto permanent storage until the system is
told not to (or some reasonable timeout occurs) - and the recordings must be attached to a particular case within 1 day, or
they too are erased. This is roughly the
equivalent (with some gain due
to technology) of the beat cop writing in his notebook after seeing a crime committed or something else of interest.
An alternative to this might be that all camera images stored lose detail or resolution over a period of time - to the point where (for example) after a day, only
those close to any particular camera might have definable face features, and after a week, the color of things is gone, and after a month, only the fact that
something moved is discernable, not what it was. This is possible with technology available today.
Let's also allow for the permanent storage of the output of any single camera (changed as needed during the period) for as long as the operator selects,
provided that this too is attached to some specific incident report, or erased within one day. This is
the equivalent of the beat cop noting that some "person of
interest" was at a given place for a time, and doing specific things - not necessarily crimes in themselves, but possibly part of some larger pattern.
Now add to all of the above the ability of any individual citizen to see what the police are watching via a web broadcast of any/all cameras not actively being used
to "permanently" record (i.e. only recording the past 5 minutes). This would give the police the same level of supervision they are according the public. It would make them
aware that such things as watching the girls go by or other "politically incorrect"
behavior might get caught - the same as it would if you watched a beat cop
ogling the girls while somebody robbed the drugstore behind them. Admittedly this monitoring by the public might need to be controlled; maximum time on any
camera/site, etc. in a similar fashion to the fact that no person could either stand around at a particular location forever, or monitor all locations all the time.
Possibly some random selector from all feeds might do the trick so neither the public nor the police would know which camera the public will monitor at any
given time.
The concepts proposed here should meet with approval of all involved. The police will have the ability to multiply their manpower through the use of
technology. The public will feel safer because "there's a cop on every corner". The privacy advocate will recognize that unless the police actively show
interest in the output of a camera and open a file or add to an existing one that there will be no long term storage of the camera images. The crooks won't know
when they're being watched, so they'll hopefully go elsewhere or turn over a new leaf. They guy who just has to dash across the street in front of the cop, but
who is really supposed to be in another city at that time, has as little chance of having to explain his presence there ten years
later as they have now. Everybody (but the crooks)
wins.
