Phillips
Vernon Daley, Staff Reporter
A POTENTIAL threat to the privacy of Jamaicans has emerged. But by the looks of it, few seem to care.
Since Dr. Peter Phillips unveiled his proposal to use public cameras to boost the surveillance capabilities of the police force, there has been no public discussion on the implications of the measure.
It's early days yet, so this proposal is still likely to bring home to Jamaica a debate that has been raging in some developed societies for a number of years.
There are two main camps. One argues that the increasing use of these cameras compromises the privacy of individuals and gives the state a dangerous power to peek into the lives of citizens. The other side contends that the use of such devices merely extends the eyes of the state in its bid to curtail crime and improve the security of the society.
With rampant crime pushing frightened Jamaicans to the brink of a nervous breakdown, it is not hard to see the National Security Minister's proposal getting general backing.
While only the uninformed would suggest that these cameras have not helped in crime detection, the sensitivity of the issue as it relates to privacy suggests that we should move very cautiously in implementing this new measure.
Dr. Phillips said he expects to start the installation of the cameras within the next four to six months but he also needs to say how this new initiative will be managed to ensure that privacy of citizens is not invaded.
It is especially crucial for the society to know how the footage collected will be used; the measures that will be put in place to ensure that such footage is kept out of corrupt hands; and whether persons will have a right to see all recordings of themselves.
The possibilities of these devices being turned to some foul purpose are not only real but endless.
For example, how do you prevent a policeman from using the device to check up on his girlfriend: the time she left work, who she was with and where she headed? Also, in the context of Jamaican political reality, what provisions are there to guard against a corrupt Government using this technology to keep a close watch on its political opponents?
This is not an argument against the use of cameras. However, appropriate safeguards must be put in place to prevent abuse.
Public cameras have helped to curtail crime and foster public order in several societies. In Britain, for example, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras have figured in some very high-profile crime cases.
In 1993 the police were able to crack the James Bulger case, using CCTV cameras evidence. The cameras picked up the two-year-old being led away from a shopping mall in Liverpool by two young boys who eventually killed him. The two boys were subsequently caught and sentenced for the crime. They were released recently.
Three years ago, David Copeland, the neo-Nazi who planted three mail bombs in London was picked up on a camera in Brixton. He was given six life sentences.
It's these and many other successes which give Britons the confidence that public cameras work. Is it any wonder that Britain is watched by some 1.5 million CCTVs, more per head of population than any other country on earth. In fact the average person in that country is likely to be filmed 300 times per day, according to experts.
Currently, the number of cameras in Britain is set to increase substantially with the introduction of a new wireless technology, utilising mobile phones to beam pictures from cameras to portable monitoring devices such as laptops.
While this new technological architecture holds out the prospect of greater crime detection, privacy advocates are raising hell. They are upset that the regulation of these devices is lagging behind developments in the technology. They are also concerned about the emergence of a Big Brother culture, with its attendant disregard for privacy and other civil liberties of citizens.
Writing in the Sunday Times last year, Bryan Appleyard told the story of a CCTV camera operator in Wales who focused his camera on a telephone box. Every time a girl he fancied walked by, he called the number of the box. If she answered it, she would find herself the victim of an obscene caller.
This and other cases help to justify the concerns of these privacy groups and sound a warning about the potential abuse of these cameras.
At least one local human rights group is concerned about how the measures will be instituted to ensure that cameras are not abused in Jamaica. Carolyn Gomes, chairperson of Jamaicans for Justice, likes the idea of using the cameras. With lawlessness crippling the society, it is not very hard to support a measure that could turn around the situation.
However, she wants to see clear guidelines on how this technology would work and measures that would be put in place to curtail abuses. "There is potential for abuse," she said. "Who will have access to these pictures and how will the system be regulated?"
The Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has taken a wait-and-see approach to the issue. Delroy Chuck, the party's Justice spokesman said he supported the idea but would wait to hear, in detail, what Dr. Phillips has to say about the implementation of the measure.
Surveillance cameras are not new to Jamaica. In fact, they have mushroomed over the last few years as businesses become more security conscious. The devices are now commonplace in banks, insurance companies, malls, and general businesses.
Recently, the Port Authority has requested pre-qualification tenders from suppliers of security equipment with the intent of installing cameras all over the ports of Kingston and Montego Bay. The management of the Authority made the move following concerns from the U.S. about local security.
On the surface of it one can't fault Dr. Phillips' decision to resort to the use of this technology.
In outlining his crime plan recently, the Minister said: "It is clear that we have allowed too many of our public spaces and public events to be overtaken by disorder and indiscipline. The centres of too many towns have become the focus of anti-social behaviour which provide a cover for more serious crimes such as extortion and robbery."
The idea is good but we need to ensure that it works for all of us. The essence of tyranny is surveillance, and use of public cameras multiplies the ability of the state to watch us. This should not cause us to despair but be vigilant in defence of our right to privacy.
