printer friendly version

Smart surveillance principles and acceptance

The increasing potential for smart surveillance – the ability of systems to automatically collect and act on information collected – has highlighted a growing concern around the world about the implications for society.

This was the focus of a recent workshop in Australia at the ECU Security Research Institute where I was asked to contribute as a speaker. The workshop included a particular focus on the impact of the European Regulations on information sharing, including those between police and security forces. Included in the EU regulations are provisions to explicitly prohibit automated decision taking regarding individuals unless “authorised by a law which also lays down measures to safeguard the data subject’s legitimate interests” (Art 7, CFD 2008/977/JHA).

There will obviously be conditions where due to threats to the state, such as terrorism, the use and disclosure of such information will be restricted. However, in open social democracies where the smart surveillance is viewing public areas with the interests of those people in mind, we could expect certain requirements in terms of the protection of rights and social interests. This is where South African legislation is following UK and EU directions and where other countries such as Australia are also going.

Arising out of the EU regulations, the UK, and our own developing legislation, for me there are a number of principles that smart surveillance should be able to satisfy in order to be able to declare that it is in the public interest and the rights of people are maintained. Indeed, some of these principles apply to private areas as well, where use of CCTV would improve social acceptance. A failure to be in accordance with many of these principles for CCTV operations at a shopping centre, office complex, or stadium would likely result in a social backlash and damage to company reputation. I see these principles as follows:

* Social legitimacy – the nature and purpose of surveillance should be seen as credible and in the interests of those on which surveillance is being done and should be consistent with their rights.

* Social relevance – the outcomes of surveillance need to have a tangible benefit on the communities in which the surveillance is being done.

* Social fairness – the way that people are treated within the system is seen as proportional to desired outcomes and consistent across the community.

* Transparency – the procedures, practice, auditing, and operation of the systems should be subject to public disclosure and open for scrutiny. UK citizens, for example, have the right to request to see CCTV town centre footage of an area where they may have been under observation.

* Social accountability – those who operate the systems should be accountable for the performance of the system and the way information is obtained, stored and used.

Ignoring the principles

The introduction of e-tolls onto Gauteng highways by Sanral has been one of the largest examples of smart surveillance in South Africa, and possibly one of the most controversial anywhere. It shows the unlikely event of all the above criteria being questioned, and a social backlash that is occurring across all sections of the population.

Sanral is an essential body in the broad scheme of national road development. While the initial concept of e-tolls has legitimacy and is a worldwide concept commonly practiced in other countries, there is now a social climate where the public have questioned just about every category listed above. I do not intend to outline the concerns as people are well aware of these and they have been raised in other forums.

However, as a normal motorist who drives the highways, the bullying approach through various means, including threatening text messages to those who would follow an accepted and legal process of payment on invoicing raises major concerns for me.

If one does pay once receiving an invoice, one makes payment to the 'Violations Processing Centre'. For me, this is one of the most deeply disturbing aspects to Sanral’s approach. Proceeding through a red traffic light is a violation, as is rape or discharging a firearm illegally. To label normal road users following a legally correct and well intentioned process of payment as 'violators' is a direct attack on the person’s psychological 'sense of self' and the integrity of those road users.

In a country where we are deeply aware of personal accusations of various kinds, it highlights an intolerance of others and their rights that is of major concern. The entire approach, including the nature of contracts required for registration for e-tags, raises issues of consumer and human rights.

Ethics, community and common sense

In the UK, an implementation of CCTV (which included number plate recognition) in mainly Muslim areas of Birmingham in 2010 that was said to be for combating crime turned out to be sponsored by counter-terrorism sections of Government. Major public objections resulted when this was discovered. An official enquiry conducted by Sara Thornton, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, found that the initiative had been implemented with virtually no consultation, oversight, or regard for the law. According to Chief Constable Thornton, “senior police failed to ask questions about the operation’s “proportionality, legitimacy, authority, necessity, and the ethical values inherent in the proposed course of action”. There is obviously a need, not only in Birmingham, but anywhere, for a well considered and community focused orientation for the implementation of smart surveillance.

Smart surveillance is supposed to make things more effective, and if we follow the provisions provided in the European Regulations and emerging in our own legislation, it needs “to safeguard the data subject’s legitimate interests”. It is clear that the implementation of the technology is not so much in the design of the system, but the culture and approach of management to its implementation.

The situation regarding e-tolls also highlights that any smart surveillance is dependent on people’s cooperation despite the sophistication of the system. It requires the consent of the governed, and if they don’t give it, the system cannot work effectively. The reaction of the South African public to this phenomenon has been extraordinary. There is a lesson in this for all those who are looking at smart surveillance and social acceptance.

Dr Craig Donald is a human factors specialist in security and CCTV. He is a director of Leaderware which provides instruments for the selection of CCTV operators, X-ray screeners and other security personnel in major operations around the world. He also runs CCTV Surveillance Skills and Body Language, and Advanced Surveillance Body Language courses for CCTV operators, supervisors and managers internationally, and consults on CCTV management. He can be contacted on +27 (0)11 787 7811 or craig.donald@leaderware.com

Share this article:

Further reading: