Caught on camera: The slippery slope between crime prevention and mass surveillance

The use of CCTV cameras and facial recognition technology have garnered significant attention for their potential to aid law enforcement in crime prevention and investigation. However, their use also raises several concerns and ethical considerations, some of which are outlined in this article.

 

Without a doubt, crime is on the rise. although statistics vary from country to country, the odds are that most citizens feel that the crime rate has increased and that they feel less safe now than they did before. Unfortunately, and more so in developing countries, law enforcement is often ill-equipped to properly address the crimes that have been occurring. And in some instances, they want to rely on seemingly draconian measures, such as detaining people on suspicion of a crime, which infringes on their human rights. However, with crime seemingly spiralling out of control in some countries, increasingly the police will be marshalling as many resources as they can to better manage the situation.

It should thus not come as a surprise that Caribbean countries, such as The Bahamas and Guyana are implementing facial recognition surveillance projects to fight crime. In The Bahamas, an initiative is already underway to deploy closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and to encourage businesses to allow the police access to their cameras and footage, which according to the country’s Prime Minister, “…can, among other things, ‘help identify faces and license plate numbers and detect gunsˆ” (Source:  BiometricUpdate.com).

Similarly, Guyana is in the process of implementing a biometric surveillance project, which according to the Government, “is meant to track criminals and their activities” (Source:  BiometricUpdate.com). In addition to security cameras, facial recognition software has been secured, which according to the country’s Vice President, “would allow us to know every criminal in Guyana, and we can pinpoint where they are at any moment” (Source:  BiometricUpdate.com).

To be fair, Jamaica has a similar CCTV programme, JamaicaEye, but very little is in the public domain on how footage is being processed and for what purpose. Further, it is likely that other Caribbean countries have either been contemplating or already using CCTV, and even facial recognition technology, to help combat crime. However, the implementation of such programmes should be carefully considered. We thus highlight some of the concerns of which citizens ought to be aware.

 

The benefits

First, the use of CCTVs and facial recognition technology can be a crime deterrent, as individuals may be less inclined to engage in unlawful behaviour if they know they are being watched. Additionally, it can foster crime detection and prevention by assisting law enforcement agencies in identifying suspects, locating missing persons, and preventing crime by quickly matching faces against a database of known individuals.

Second, CCTV footage, when combined with facial recognition technology, can strengthen evidence collection, which is often a key reason why many cases cannot be prosecuted and also why many criminal cases fail in the courts: insufficient evidence. Regarding the facial recognition aspect, if the system is properly trained and calibrated, its accuracy could provide compelling support when crimes are being investigated and prosecuted.

Finally, the enhanced surveillance and continuous monitoring of public spaces, for example, through the deployment of CCTVs can foster an improved perception of public safety. However, that sense of safety will only continue as long as the attendant systems to quickly detect and respond to potential threats are also put in place.

 

The concerns

The first and perhaps the biggest concern is regarding privacy, CCTV cameras continuously monitor and record individuals’ movements in public spaces without their consent, leading to potential violations of privacy rights. Similarly, facial recognition technology involves the collection and analysis of biometric data without individuals’ consent.

Although more countries are enacting data protection and/or data privacy laws, in many instances, the laws may not be consistent with the current views on privacy. Further, the police and ministries of national security, for example, are often exempted from all of the provisions of these laws, and it may be unclear how or to the latitude to which they are collecting and using individuals’ personal data.

Second, the issue of bias and incorrectly calibrated facial recognition systems cannot be overlooked. Bias has been a big issue in the security and surveillance space, as how algorithms are developed and systems are trained can result in bias and misidentification, which has been especially prevalent among the non-white/people of colour demographic. As noted earlier, it is thus essential that systems are properly trained and calibrated, failing which wrongful arrests or the targeting of innocent individuals may occur, exacerbating existing inequalities in societies.

Third, there is also a legitimate fear that the initial premise of using CCTV cameras and facial recognition tools for crime-fighting purposes could be expanded to mass surveillance of the population. Without proper oversight, mass surveillance can undermine people’s freedom of expression, assembly and other civil liberties, as well as their right to privacy and anonymity in public spaces.

Finally, in the current era of very sophisticated cybercrime and artificial intelligence, the security risks associated with storing video footage and sensitive biometric data cannot be overstated. Data breaches and unauthorized access may not only result in misuse of personal data but also identity theft, evidence tampering and even extortion.

 

Balancing the pros and cons

Dissuading governments from implementing these surveillance measures may be nearly impossible, especially if the measures they have implemented to manage crime have produced limited results and they believe they have few alternatives. However, it is vital that governments are not given carte-blanche or unbridled power on this matter. They should still be held accountable – even in matters of national security.

Public engagement on the deployment of CCTV cameras and the use of facial recognition technology is thus crucial. Governments must be required to provide clear information or guidelines about the purpose, scope, and safeguards of surveillance programmes they implement and obtain informed consent where possible.

Second, cognisant of the value societies place on data and privacy protection, laws should be enacted (or amended) to protect biometric data collected through facial recognition. Moreover, there should be strict limitations on its collection, storage, and sharing, along with data retention, encryption protocols, and user consent requirements.

Third, every effort ought to be made to eliminate bias in the facial detection software used. Regular auditing and testing of facial recognition algorithms should be done to detect and mitigate biases. Further, it is important to advocate for transparency in the development of algorithms and the training data sources to ensure fairness and accuracy.

Finally, to ensure that ‘unbridled power’ is not exercised, systems that facilitate regulation and oversight of the deployment and use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition technology, ought to be implemented. Even in matters of national security, there is still the need for transparency, accountability, and compliance with the law.

 

 

Images credit:  Freepik;  Michał Jakubowski (Unsplash);  Pawel Czerwinski (Unsplash)