Is Britain a Surveillance Society - Essay Example

?  According to the BBC (2006), 'Britain is a surveillance society.' To what extent does this compromise and conflict with people's right to privacy?– An Analysis. Introduction It is estimated that in excess of 4.2 million surveillance cameras have been installed in public places in U.K as of date which is far above the quantum of such cameras around the globe. It is to be observed that in the middle of 1990s; about seventy-five percent of UK government’s crime prevention budget was earmarked for CCTV operations. Many critics were perplexed over the UK government wide usage of CCTV for surveillance as Britons always defending of their privacy at home. CCTV surveillance is concerned with social sorting. The surveillance system receives group and personal data so as to classify populations and people as per varying yardstick, to decide who should be targeted for suspicion, special treatment, inclusion, eligibility, and access etc. Oscar Gandy names it as the “panoptic sort” which is a discriminatory either fully or not automated technology. (Lyon 2003:20). The deployment of huge number of CCTV in Britain and its effect on civil liberties and on human rights, frequently is being debated across the nation. The main concern is that there exists no proper act or regulation concerning their use .The present UK’s coalition government has assured to initiate steps to address this issue and would look into plugging the existing holes like misuse of CCTV surveillance by authorities and to prevent human right abuses like invasion of individual’s privacy (Rowlinson 2008). Beside large number of CCTV installed in U.K, it is also having globe’s largest DNA database, consisting about 5.3 million DNA samples. The lure to mount CCTV cameras by the private and public sector is not easy to defy. Though Data-protection tries to control its misuse but such rule has not established to be efficacy. Denmark has stringent law that prohibits their use subject to some exclusion like use in petrol stations. The CCTV monitoring law in Holland, Sweden, France is more rigorous as compared to Britain. These nations follow licensing system and the law demands that warning symbols to be placed on the side-line of the zone being monitored. German law also has analogues requirements. ( Wacks 2010:10). Prior to 1998, there were inconsistent and erratic voluntary Codes of Practices for the regulation of CCTV monitoring in Britain that were hardly adhered with. The legislation that regulates CCTV monitoring is of recent origin in the United Kingdom. The privacy issue was emphasised by the Human Rights Act, 1998. The truth is that there is even now no particular legal regime is existing to regulate CCTV which has probably resulted in the acknowledgement of United Kingdom as a CCTV surveillance hot spot. The only present regulations for regulating CCTV monitoring are to be seen in the common law on privacy, the Data Protection Act, 1998, the laws on criminal evidence which control the admissibility in court of info gathered by CCTV and under the provisions of breach of confidence. During recent times, the Information Commissioner issued both a Data Protection Code on Monitoring at Work and a specific CCTV Code of Practice which pinpoints specifically to the CCTV code and to camera surveillance activities. Recently, there has been an amendment in CCTV Code in the background of decision given in the contentious case namely Durant v. FSA. In this case, the Court of Appeal unpredictably shortened the broad interpretation of “personal data.” The camera surveillance in U.K had a serious impact due to verdict given in the Durant v. FSA where the Information Commissioner’s CCTV Code of Practice 2000 and the Data Protection Act, 1998 are applicable. Due to verdict given in the Durant case, the Data Protection Act is no more applicable to “ basic CCTV systems” as they are not gathering “ personal data “ as regards to any citizen when they are able to focus on any individual or they are not intended despite images of identifiable , living persons are recorded. The CCTV controller requires to make a decision whether the images that have been captured are intended at discovering about an individual’s activities or not. For the applicability of data protection law, the personal private sphere is no more needed, but the goals and the intentions of CCTV operator are required to be established. Thus, the Durant case has aroused an unpredictable transformation in the applicability of the law. (Nouwt et al 2010 : 328). Surveillance Since 1990, a “surveillance revolution “is under progress in the U.K as in many of the UK’s town and cities, CCTV surveillance systems have been installed. As per Webster (1996), the uptake of CCTV surveillance in public places by public agencies and local authorities can be regarded as “revolutionary” since its uptake has been both widespread and rapid. Thus , CCTV has been installed in city and town centres , in hospitals , schools , car parks , libraries , rural and residential areas. Further, CCTV surveillance systems have been installed in private sectors like shops, banks , garage forecourts , offices , business parks and fast food outlets. There is a general perception that CCTV surveillance has really reduced across the society and hence, there is a pervasive support for CCTV surveillance among general public, policy-makers and politicians. (Hoff, Horrocks & Tops 2010:112). Norris and Armstrong are of the view that the design of the utmost surveillance society is presently exists in the U.K. As per Surveillance society report, now surveillance in Britain extends to key stroke info employed to measure work rates, US security agencies supervising telecommunications traffic crossing over UK and GPS info monitoring company vehicles etc. It also projects that in the year 2016, CCTV surveillance will have coverage over schools children which would help their parents to monitor what they are doing, every shopper who enters into a shop and jobs may be denied by the employer to the prospective applicants who are seen as a health hazard. (BBC 2006). Of late , there has been an enhancement in surveillance in governmental , workshop and commercial settings. Further, there has been an enhanced surveillance on male and middle-class populations. As per Bauman (2001), women and lower socio-economic groups have long been familiarised to the gaze of various surveillance and there has been an increase in privacy issues which has to be visualised in the background of ever increasing individualised societies. (Lyon 2003:19). Privacy In Britain, the right to privacy was introduced in 2000 into British law. Majority of CCTV systems in U.K do not have coverage under Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act ,2000 RIPA as CCTV are not targeted for any particular investigation or operation and as they are typically overt. In 2008, a revised Code of Practice was issued which espoused a wider construal that would cover “majority “CCTV if it is directed at recording or viewing the conducts of individual. (Chesterman 2011: 150). The CCTV issue has also been pushed by a chain of activist Privacy Commissioners and one among them suggested the four-prong test followed in 2003. For instance, China installed more than 300,000 CCTVs during the Beijing Olympics in 2008 around the Chinese capital. Britain is planning to follow the footsteps of China in the London Olympics in 2012. (Chesterman 2011: 154). For gathering news , the media is frequently needs to use intrusive techniques such as zoom lenses , deception , hidden devises , correspondence , the interception of telephone conversations and other guises of surveillance and spying activities. There is a penchant to coalesce the intrusion observed by the prying journalist with the dissemination of information thereby gathered. In Dietemann v. Time, Inc case, two reporters of Life magazine conned the appellant into permitting them access to his residence where they had set up surveillance instruments in concealment to monitor the appellant, a typical uneducated plumber who claimed to offer treatment and diagnosis of physical ailments. Definitively, the published article threw some light on the unlicensed practice of medicine to the gullible public, but the court had to decide whether there was privacy violation and whether to sanction immunity to the reporters who indulged in secret surveillance by resorting to surreptitious news gathering methods. The court gave a verdict in favour of plaintiff on appeal and the invasion of privacy was sustained. (Wacks 2010:88) Counter argument against surveillance society regarding privacy Surveillance is a two-edged sword and its advantages should be accepted. However, at the same juncture, dangers and perils are ever present in giant, large-scale systems and power and authority skews vision of those wield it or of course, power does corrupt. (Chesterman 2011: 154). A famous recent case witnessed council officials in Dorset gathered telephone records and followed one Jenny Paton secretly for nearly 21 days thereby logging movements of that lady and her three kids in their “target vehicle.” It was alleged that she used false data for the school admission. After 21 days close supervision by CCTV cameras, the police officials informed that there was no chargeable offense against Jenny Paton. This corroborates how CCTV can be misused by police officials. (Chesterman 2011: 154). Argument in favour of surveillance society regarding privacy In Britain, of late, CCTV is turned to be more complicated and more widespread. In U.K, surveillance system use networked digital cameras increasingly which is competent of warehousing data. As far as crime is concerned, footage from CCTV is periodically transmitted in televised programmes and in certain instances, CCTV images is broadcasted alive to the Internet. (Chesterman 2011: 149). Dr Stephen Graham from the University of Newcastle calls CCTV technology as the “fifth utility “after water, telephones, electricity and gas. Thus, CCTV seems set to follow an analogues style of development over the next two decades and to turn to be a kind of Fifth Estate. Norris and Armstrong are of the view that the design of the utmost surveillance society is presently exists. The hardware technology of CCTV is so constantly in position that is helping to watch everyone all the time and CCTV issue is now just a software issue. (Norris & Armstrong 1999:21). According to supporters , CCTV is being used for to minimise the “anti-social demeanour “ which includes underage smoking , urinating in parks , littering , graffiti , traffic violations , drunkenness , obstructions , evading meters in town parking lots and indecency (Chesterman 2011: 154). As per Surveillance society report, now surveillance in Britain extends to key stroke info employed to measure work rates, US security agencies supervising telecommunications traffic crossing over UK and GPS info monitoring company vehicles etc. It also projects that in the year 2016, CCTV surveillance will have coverage over schools children which would help their parents to monitor what they are doing, every shopper who enters into a shop and jobs may be denied by the employer to the prospective applicants who are seen as a health hazard. (BBC 2006). Counter argument against surveillance society regarding privacy There is widespread discrimination against economically and socially downtrodden youths as CCTV will be employed as a tool of injustice through the magnification of discriminatory and differential policing. (Garfinkel 2000). There is a general allegation that an operator could control a video monitor or move the surveillance cameras and it was alleged that surveillance cameras were disproportionately and systematically targeted at young black males but because of their race and age. (Garfinkel 2000 Argument in favour of surveillance society regarding privacy CCTV installed at stadiums can help to identify and book the known fugitives and cameras installed on street lamps and government buildings can help to monitor surrounding provinces for crime.(Volokh 2002). Counter argument against surveillance society regarding privacy As per Simon Davies who testified before the House of Lords in 1997 and who was then Director general of Privacy International was under impression that CCTV camera operators were exercising their discrimination to prejudice against class ,age , race or sexual preference. (Garfinkel 2000) Argument in favour of surveillance society regarding privacy Thanks to the advancement in technology as CCTC is able to have now advanced cameras that will have capabilities of face identification, permitting individuals to be chosen from the crowd out of a database or can supervise and monitor for specific varieties of suspicious demeanour. (Rowlinson 2008). Conclusion Though CCTV can be used for prevention of crime, it is argued that there are many less intrusive styles of executing it. Citizens have a lot of lawful interest in privacy and safeguarding these private rights is significant to their standing as equal and free citizens. Accordingly, though CCTV can be termed as an evil necessary, efficacy is not adequate to rationalise CCTV in a democratic society. (Ryberg 2007). In many European nations including the United Kingdom , lack of specific laws appears to be balanced by the guidelines , opinions and codes of conduct that are frequently conceived by the national data protection officials , particularly in the Netherlands and in the Italy.. These guidelines, opinions can offer clear understanding of the legal structure for controllers of CCTV system and for citizens and thus pave a way to better comprehending of what the rational anticipations of privacy are. Thus, at this juncture, in the absence of clear cut laws on CCTV monitoring systems, it appears that self-regulatory opinions, instructions and guidelines offered by data protection officials are adequate viable alternatives for the lack of specific CCTV regulations. In case of any doubt and the question about their adequacy, it may be in part to be corroborated by the decided case laws on the subject. (Nouwt et al 2010:331). List of References BBC (2006) Britain is a surveillance society. [Online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm [Accessed 05 March 2011] Chesterman, Simon. (2011). One Nation Under Surveillance: A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garfinkel, Simpson. (2000). Database Nation: the Death of Privacy in the 21st Century. London: O’ Reilly Media Inc. Hoff Jens, Horrocks Ivan & Tops Pieter. (2010). Democratic Governance and New Technology. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis. Lyon, David. (2003). Surveillance As Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Norris, C. & Armstrong, G. (1999).The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV. New York: Berg Nouwt Sjaak, de Vriess Berend R, Prins Corien. (2010). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy? Eleven Country Reports on Cameras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowlinson, J (2008). About Human Rights [Online] Available at: http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/human-rights-cctv.html [Accessed 05 March 2011] Ryberg, J. (2007) Privacy Rights, Crime Prevention, CCTV, and the Life of Mrs.Aremac Res Publica 13:127a€“143 DOI 10.1007/s11158-007-9035-x Volokh, E. (2002) The benefits of surveillance. [Online] Available at: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/camerascomm.htm [Accessed at 14 February 2011] Wacks, Raymond. (2010). Privacy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More