Is camera monitoring an invasion of privacy?

Date: 27/05/2005
Source:
Author: -

In order to protect the safety and property of students, Renmin University of China in Beijing recently installed security cameras in the corridors of the girls' dormitories. The move failed to get a thumbs-up from students who complained the move was an invasion of privacy and infringed upon their rights as citizens.

The growing issue of security cameras comes at a time when personal safety is a primary concern. Last August, plans were afoot in Shanghai to install 200,000 security cameras across the city over a few years. The proposal was met by a barrage of protests from local citizens. Their argument was: Why should millions of citizens be kept under scrutiny for the deeds of a small number of criminals? And naturally, the question of whether the cameras infringed on people's rights was raised.

Security cameras have long played a positive role in combating and deterring crime. However, there's a delicate balancing act to be played between the public interest and individual rights. How can the two be reconciled?

The following are viewpoints expressed in Beijing Review magazine.

Wu Ming (Freelance writer): There is no doubt that the university is doing this for the sake of protecting students' property and personal safety, but many other areas of student life have become restrictive since the cameras were installed. Primarily, the girls felt the cameras interfered in their privacy and turned to the media for help. Students' concerns are in many cases justified, as is the case with girls being skimpily clad when going to bathrooms under the eye of the surveillance cameras.

The university said the manned camera-command room is in the security section and ordinary people, except those from this section, are forbidden from entering the command room. Therefore, students' privacy is strictly controlled. Nevertheless, guards can look in on students' privacy at any time and there is no guarantee the security tapes will not find their way out of the university.

The students were not asked for their opinion on the cameras and the move was totally unilateral. The aim of universities is to cultivate and shape people, but in such a setting in which supervision and control is omnipresent, how can students maintain their independent thinking?

Xia Xueluan (Professor at the Department of Sociology, Peking University): Universities installing cameras are putting students under constant supervision, a move which typically increases students' rebellious psychology. It's neither legal nor reasonable. Some schools even make tapes, which definitely infringes on students' rights to privacy and pushes them to extremes, losing the meaning of education.

Ren Zhong (Shanghai resident): The privacy of residents won't be infringed upon in everyday life as everything we do outside of our homes is seen by other people anyway. Why should we then worry about a camera monitoring us on the streets? Installing cameras can benefit the city in fighting crime and securing our safety. What is wrong with that?

Every coin has two sides. Installing cameras in public places, especially some key sites, can provide law enforcement agencies with criminal evidence, deter criminals and enhance public security. This also plays a positive role in maintaining Shanghai's image as an international metropolis. It is stretching things a bit to call this infringing on privacy rights.

First of all, it is not against present laws and regulations. Second, in a public place it is unavoidable to be seen by others. The advantages therefore outweigh the disadvantages.

The whole aim of security cameras is to stop robberies and other crimes in order for people to live in peace. This is not unreasonable.

Zhang Guifeng (Legal Daily writer): The authorities always emphasize public security while citizens and students put more attention on the respect for privacy.

Why is this kind of move aimed at protecting citizens always opposed by the very people it will benefit? On the surface, it seems to be a dilemma between the protection of life and property and privacy rights. It is not wrong of administrative authorities to install cameras.

Yet, if we analyze the whole thing thoroughly, it is not difficult to find the reason why people are dissatisfied. It seems the methodology of this security measure is what is really being opposed. Can cameras really be effective in protecting the lives and property of students? Do they have to install cameras in the corridors? Why are the opinions of people affected not taken into consideration beforehand? These seem to be the real issues.

It goes without saying that any measure taken to protect rights can not only be a question of should or should not, but more importantly, how this protection is carried out.

This issue is not only restricted to installing security cameras. Currently, many public management programmes seem to take any means they deem necessary in the name of protecting rights and serving the public interest. Examples range from money-consuming "government image projects" to so-called small "projects for people's convenience." In these cases, decisions seem to be made by authorities without any consideration of the public interest.

This article may be reproduced as long as the source Footprint Home Security is provided as a link.

Back to Free Expert Advice

Back to Footprint Home Security