|
CCTV -
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jennifer Brown
|
|
Tuesday, 19 February 2008 16:24 |
|
Page 1 of 2 
When a customer asks a security professional to install a video surveillance system in and around their property, in most cases the last thing on their mind is whether their cameras will be infringing the privacy of others. By the time most business owners have arrived at the decision to put in cameras, the reality is they are more concerned about protecting their assets than privacy.
But for both the customer and the installer, privacy should be a big
part of the discussion when the installer and customer sit down to
discuss camera placement. Of course that assumes the installer is aware
of what he or she can or cannot do when putting a surveillance system
in place.
The Canadian Security Association (CANASA) announced late last year
that it would be lobbying on behalf of the Toronto Transit Commission
(TTC) in response to Privacy International, a U.K.-based advocacy group
that says cameras planned for the TTC constitute an unfair intrusion on
the privacy of transit riders. But CANASA hasn’t come out with a strong
education plan for dealers/installers/vendors regarding privacy.
During our annual roundtable with SP&T’s editorial advisory board
(see page 16) the issue of privacy was discussed and concerns were
raised about whether the average installer knows what they can or can’t
do when installing a camera for a customer.
It’s an important issue, especially given incidents such as the one
that occurred in May of last year when a video image of a woman
providing a urine sample in a washroom at a Sudbury, Ont., methadone
clinic drew harsh criticism from Ontario’s Information and Privacy
Commissioner, Anne Cavoukian. The video image was inadvertently
intercepted over a wireless device in a car outside the clinic. It
turned out the clinic didn’t even know their security provider had
installed unsecured wireless surveillance technology and that it could
be intercepted by the public if not adequately protected.
It was the opinion of CCTV legal expert, Elliott Goldstein, that “the
failure by the security firm to advise the clinic that the wireless
video surveillance system was being installed, that the wireless signal
from the system could be intercepted, and that encryption of the signal
was available to prevent interception, could have resulted in a lawsuit
against the security firm by the clinic and any person(s) whose image
was broadcast (e.g., transmitted without encryption).”
If that doesn’t send a shiver down the spine of a few installers I don’t know what would.
|
