[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHE99tsXZ0[/youtube]
One of the most broadly debated topics about public space is the use of video surveillance on our streets by local police authorities. The Toronto Public Space Committee has a campaign focuesed on the issue, while the debate has raged on in cities like London, England, where cameras apparently capture a person’s image over 3,000 times in a single day.
A group called Guerrilla Geography, based out of London, did a great intervention: they carried around fake video surveillance cameras and invaded people’s personal space by following them closely or putting the camera right up into their face. The video is great (shown above) because it forces people to confront the realities of how intrusive video surveillance really is. The question that popped into my mind was: is there any difference if the camera is controlled remotely or if its held by a human? Theoretically, I’d say there is no real difference, but it feels different because the surveillance becomes humanized.
The performers nicely illustrate the philosophical complexities of this issue at a time when the public has done nothing more than shrug at the deterioration of privacy and the slow expansion of private security interests into the public realm.
11 comments
Are the cameras monitored in England? I would hardly consider the Toronto system as being similar, since its my understanding that they are unmonitored and only referred to if there’s been an incident.
Like the time somebody got shot under a camera and the gunman wasn’t recorded? I remember that incident!
If we allow cameras to become more widespread in Toronto, we could easily see something like the UK model here.
The scariest thing about the surveillance state is that it will not be imposed on us by force, but people will demand it.
The Boxing Day shooting of a couple of years ago and the response from the police to install CCTV demonstrated a fundamental philosophical shortcoming. It’s clear to me that the young woman had a better chance of surviving that boxing day if there’d been a real, live beat cop on the corner of Young and Elm. The psychological effect of a police officer’s presence is overwhelming in stopping crime. You may argue that Clubland demonstrates that this isn’t true. But there’s a us vs. them attitude that the police seem to have toward club goers that will always make policing that area very difficult.
But I digress; by selling Toronto Police Service cars and putting more cops on foot beats would make the downtown area safer and that’ll bring more people into the core. The more people that are around (police and civilian) the safer people feel, and likely the safer they are.
I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to run for mayor because of my staunch “get the cops out of their cars” position. I imagine it would be taken by the Toronto Sun crowd as being anti-police. It isn’t, it just follows the widely held principle that police work best when they are visible and personable. As an added bonus they come equipped with the 2 best cameras money can buy.
Things are always more noticeable when you attach a face to an issue. Personally, I do not mind the surveillance as long as the tapes are only referred to in the event of an incident. I know it may be reaching to hope that a rule like that wouldn’t be abused…but I can hope…
I missed on critically important point in my previous post and Chris has brought it back to mind.
Having cops on the street is policing. Have cameras which record crimes is law enforcement.
North American police services put a grossly disproportionate amount of their resources towards catching the bad guys compared with protecting the good guys. Cameras catch bad guys…that’s it. How is that supposed to help me feel better?
The camera situation in London really surprised me; how many there were. I was also surprised that most locals I asked were in favour of it. I would also note that there was a large number of private stores that had their own camera systems and this seemed to be a growing trend. London has gone through the IRA years and recent bombings so one might expect people to be in favour of cameras everywhere but it turned out that one of the biggest causes for cameras, in London, and other cities, and a growing number of towns, was public rowdy-ness usually caused by drinking. There is actually a TV reality show like COPS that is about yobs and drinking. One of the reasons that Blair changed the beer laws was to try to diffuse binge drinking.
I dont find cameras intrusive at all and we are already videotaped far more than we realize. In some cases it makes me feel safer or my wife safer late at night in a parking garage.
The video doesnt prove anything except that people dont want to be bothered by bad street theatre; in fact I don’t think people looked too bothered at all. One of them was smiling. I should mention as well, as a filmaker, that by shooting footage of passersby and singling them out by pointing cameras and following them, and editing them into a posted video, these “guerrillas” have violated the privacy rights of those predestrians. Great video ? More high school than real debate. In fact judging by trying to see anything at Nuit Blanche we have become a society of camera phone/video junkies that wants to tape and be taped 24 hours a day (or night).
Instead of video cameras in public places a more pressing issue to investigate would be the world of data mining (yes including image scraping) that really is the greatest invasion of privacy that I can think of right now.
Josh — You’ve hit the nail on the head (for me anyway). Your points are the reason I made this post.
As for running for mayor, you’d be fine to run on a platform like that. The Sun may not like it, but most everyone else would. Even suburban moms would like too see police on streets instead of cars. I hear it all the time when I talk to my friends moms who live in North York. They feel safe, relatively, but feel safer when a cop is on foot.
That also helps neighbourhoods become familiar with cops on the beat — once you know someone, even if they are your nemesis, it discourages crime.
I personally don’t care if i’m videotaped in public, but as Josh says, beat cops are where’s it at. It always astounds me when when I see cops drive their cruisers through Allen Gardens or Alexander Park (often ruining the grass). Would seem to be, from a policing POV, better to sneak up on the bad-guys on foot, rather than roaring through and giving them plenty of warning you’re coming.
Even the Toronto Sun would get behind more beat cops (though one shouldn’t underestimate their confounding nature).
Sometimes it’s nice to be able to say hi and talk to a cop. They become community members.
Scott – I think you’re right that people don’t generally mind the presence of video equipment. I would caution that North Americans and most Western Europeans haven’t really felt the consequences of being so closely watched.
The distance between casual street-side surveillance and 1984 can be measured by determining what kind of event would have to occur to make “telescreens” not only palatable, but a necessity. Wouldn’t we feel safer if someone more authoritative than ourselves was ensuring that citizens weren’t doing anything socially unacceptable in their homes. We could end domestic crime in an instant. We tolerate a measure of this, as you say, in our daily lives already and if cameras provide the illusion of safety (the security guard in your parking garage is probably surfing Facebook) then there’s merit. Right?
Josh>” I would caution that North Americans and most Western Europeans haven’t really felt the consequences of being so closely watched.”
Europeans do there are cameras everywhere.And what would these consequences be ?
Josh> My question sounded snarky. I wanted to know what consequences you are referring to.