News   Jan 09, 2025
News Roundup for January 9, 2025
 132     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
The Naked City
 285     0 
News   Jan 08, 2025
50 Scollard Tops Off as Cladding and Glazing Installation Continues
 1.1K     0 

Globe on Yonge Street police cameras

"Then again, why stop there? What is really wrong with putting up such cameras in homes?"

There is a principled reason to stop there; the slope is not as slippery as you say. Yonge street is public; the home is private. Ergo cameras in the former do not violate our right to privacy; cameras in the latter do.
 
If you argue that someone has nothing to be ashamed of by walking down Yonge Street and that it is therefore open season on them as far as video surveillance is concerned, surely it follows that they should be even more closely monitored behind the closed doors of their own home - since they would be far more likely to do things hidden in their home that are illegal or immoral that the authorities should know about. It is indeed a slippery slope: removal of privacy rights in one realm sets us up for removal of privacy rights in another realm.
 
I wouldn't argue that we have a right to monitor any activity that we are not ashamed of; I am simply arguing that the public has a right to monitor public areas to ensure public safety.

If fighting crime were our only aim, then yes, cameras in homes would be an appropriate policy. But of course fighting crime is just one aim that must compete with other legitimate ones in our society. One of those other aims is the protection of individual rights, including those to privacy. The street cameras do not violate this right, I argue (or the violation is trivial and redundant); while cameras in homes clearly do.
 
We are very capable of drawing distinctions between the public and private spaces and the 'slippery slope' arguement fails to take that very human capacity into account. We make distinctions all the time, between right and wrong, innocent and guilty, public and private, ugly and beautiful, acceptable and not acceptable. Without the capacity, we would become unable to do anything, always giving way to the 'slippery slope' argument for everything: we should not say who is guilty or innocent because our definition of guilty could change, therefore no one is guilty and there should be no courts or laws; we cannot say what is ugly or beautiful therefore we should not have any design review panels and developers should be allowed to build anything, anywhere; etc.

The beautiful thing about humans is that we can make decisions and distinctions and such talent allows us to function. No one is arguing that cameras be in private places and cameras in public spaces does not automatically mean cameras in private places.

Should we not allow police to walk down public streets without warrents because this could lead them to enter our homes without warrents? Of course not.
 
Who are the wise "we" who are so capable of making distinctions between private and public on our behalf? CSIS? The RCMP?
 
Our legislative bodies and Courts are the 'we.' They (with the assistance of common law and the Charter) make the laws which the police are subject to.
 
There is no doubt there are grey zones and that our perceptions of what is public and private may change. This does little though to strengthen a slippery slope argument that fails to take into account the strength of courts, common law and the Charter, legislative bodies and a strong public 'common sense' perception as to what is public and what is private.

And I do not necessarily think that the natural state of humanity is highly reasoned, which is why I do not oppose cameras in public places (heck, if we were a little more reasoned, so much crime would not take place). I also think the layers of protection, such as elected representatives who must answer to the people, common law and the Charter provide enough protection from cameras in the street turning into cameras in the home.
 
The police have been known to complain that they aren't given enough powers, including the power of electronic surveillance in public places. They point out that they are more restricted, through legislation, than private security firms in this regard. The private security company at Dundas Square, for instance, installed several cameras when the place opened.

Legislative bodies, such as the one currently dominated by the Harper Conservatives, don't automatically qualify as guarantors of freedoms.

And spare a thought for poor Zanta - banned from much of the downtown core because, amongst other things, he had the nerve to show up on the street outside CITY TV whenever they were taping street scenes.
 
Yonge is a public street, and probably quite safe because of that fact. It is already "under observation" so to speak. Private homes are not public spaces. So if one is concerned about the lack of seeing what everyone is up to (because the unobserved are all potential criminals), then maybe we should consider cameras in the homes.

The beautiful thing about humans is that we can make decisions and distinctions and such talent allows us to function. No one is arguing that cameras be in private places and cameras in public spaces does not automatically mean cameras in private places.
Click to expand...

The "beautiful" thing is that these are only distinctions. Just how much privacy are you entitled to? Entitled by what means? Ask anyone about such things and you will probably will get a different answer. Throw in a few high crime stories, and attitudes will change. Point out that a good portion of violence and murder happen in the home, and then you have a potential argument for cameras in the home as "crime prevention." Also don't presume that the natural state of humanity is highly reasoned. People have to work at that.

There is nothing wrong with posing slippery-slope arguments because they illustrate grey zones. Morality is clouded with grey zones because there are no absolute rules writ large in nature for us to adhere to.
 
This does little though to strengthen a slippery slope argument that fails to take into account the strength of courts, common law and the Charter, legislative bodies and a strong public 'common sense' perception as to what is public and what is private.
Click to expand...

Lovely in theory, but how far and according to whom? Your private may be a public domain to others. Who decides? The courts? Common sense?

Once cameras are established and deemed a success by those who choose to call them a success, what are the next moves to reduce crime?

With the establishment of cameras, will criminals now be forced to wear masks and cover over their get-away car plates when carrying out a robbery?

And good-old common sense. What was it that Albert Einstein said? Common sense is the accumulated prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

Common sense has, and will, change over time. I wouldn't count on it as a regular and constant factor.
 
"Lovely in theory, but how far and according to whom? Your private may be a public domain to others. Who decides? The courts? Common sense?"

Yes, the Courts decide, along with public opinion, those who are elected to make decisions on our behalf, the Charter and common law. They make decisions on all behalf all the time, they make distinctions between right and wrong all the time and without these bodies and institutions, our society would not be able to function (we would be always brush away good ideas with "well, who decides." We give others the right to decide so we can get things done, like catch and punish criminals. We decide what things are right and wrong every day - it is called laws. And there are privacy laws too. And those laws are layered along with the Charter and common law and public opinion.

One simply can't make an argument against doing something with "well, who decides?" because with such logic, you would not be able to do anything as a society ("you can't make a law against stealing. Who decide what is stealing? Little kids playing with each other in a house could be charged with stealing when one takes the other's toys during play.").
 
I wouldn't put too much faith in public opinion as a defender of our right not to be spied on in public - "I say watch away, baby. I've got nothing to hide" seems to be a pretty common attitude: thus is the slippery slope paved with wrong-headed intentions, legitimate dissent is discouraged, and the cause of the police state advanced.
 
If you are going to make a slippery slope argument you should contain it to include only the next plausable step. Any further undermines the argument. As I mentioned the privacy issue comes with access to information laws. These video recordings are not for general public review, anyone caught distributing information outside the boundaries set by the law can be charged. If the argument is that you are defending privacy by opposing these cameras then you should first seek to ban all private photography and video recording devices first because they are not bound by the same stringent privacy and access to information regulations.
 
Sunderland in the UK has mounted speakers on cameras to berate people for tossing litter etc.
 
One simply can't make an argument against doing something with "well, who decides?" because with such logic, you would not be able to do anything as a society ("you can't make a law against stealing. Who decide what is stealing? Little kids playing with each other in a house could be charged with stealing when one takes the other's toys during play.") .
Click to expand...

Your example of little kids has already happened a number of times.

The issue here is the idea to put everyone in public areas under scrutiny in order to supposedly stop crimes from happening through surveillance (crimes that have yet to happen, or could possibly happen). The other argument is to use such camera recordings as a means to prosecute (after a crime has been completed; or in other words crimes not stopped by the cameras that are supposed to stop crime). What is the source for pursuing such surveillance? Is it to stop crime that takes place in a given area every once in a while? Is it to reduce the perception that a specific place is dangerous? Is it to curtail the simple fear of crime? Will that ever be enough? If crime should persist (and it will because cameras don't address cause), then new measures may be considered by governments or lobby groups demanding more stringent measures.

Electronic surveillance can be form-fitted to meet many political and social agendas - particularly those that pursue law and order agendas, potentially satisfying those who confuse threat of force with justice being done. In pursuing political agendas, different groups can easily be pitted against each other with respect to fears over safety, and as a result, lines can be blurred between what is private or public domains. These things have happened in the past; they can happen again.

The Privacy Commisioner of Ontario has already ruled that cameras should only be considered after other means of deterrence have been exhausted, such as the means to reduce the risk of crime such as better lighting, safety improvements, crime reduction campaigns, public awareness, foot patrols and police work. Even then, the commisioner has suggested that the collecting of surveillance can be used to drive political agendas. For some people, putting up cameras will always mean that a place is forevert dangerous, and not safe. Such a world-view is a perfect ground for paranoia and further demand for crime control.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top