They're watching
By Christine Manson
Issue date: 1/18/07 Section: Opinions
The OPP security cameras on Yonge Street were taken down last week at the end of their three-week trial period. The cameras were positioned to watch over the now infamous shopping district at Yonge and Dundas where 15-year-old Jane Creba was shot and killed in gang-related cross-fire, just over a year ago. The cameras were installed on a temporary basis, not only to test their effectiveness, but to gauge public reaction.
Businesses in the area are very much in favour of the cameras. The rise of violence in the area has caused a significant drop in their business, and they hope the presence of the cameras will quell fears and lure customers back to the region. The general public, however, is having a far more mixed reaction. There was a significant amount of concern regarding personal privacy if the cameras were to become a permanent fixture. However, in the mere three weeks that the cameras were active, they captured yet another shooting. This footage has been extremely helpful for the police investigation, and in their opinion, clearly demonstrates the benefit of the cameras.
This surveillance technology is already being used in England: millions of CCTV cameras patrol the streets of London, and it is estimated that the average London citizen is captured on camera some 200-300 times per day. While this technology is not without controversy, it has been proven effective; it was recently released that surveillance footage was used to trace the last steps of one of the victims of the Ipswich serial killer. Authorities did, however, refuse to state whether the technology was used to apprehend the suspected murderer.
This distinction clearly illustrates the public's fear of the technology. It is a valuable tool for protecting victims or for locating a lost loved one, but it is greatly feared by many as a source of evidence. However, it is safe to assume that it is not just criminals who are opposed to this surveillance; t it is not so much the technology and its potential benefit that people are wary of, but rather the people/institution using the technology that is of concern. Such a concern is definitely warranted, and certainly one can not get through a discussion of this issue without the words 'Big Brother' and 'Orwellian' being thrown out a couple of times. However, it is unfortunate that so much protest in the name of privacy is being wasted on a tool with the potential for a lot of good.
Businesses in the area are very much in favour of the cameras. The rise of violence in the area has caused a significant drop in their business, and they hope the presence of the cameras will quell fears and lure customers back to the region. The general public, however, is having a far more mixed reaction. There was a significant amount of concern regarding personal privacy if the cameras were to become a permanent fixture. However, in the mere three weeks that the cameras were active, they captured yet another shooting. This footage has been extremely helpful for the police investigation, and in their opinion, clearly demonstrates the benefit of the cameras.
This surveillance technology is already being used in England: millions of CCTV cameras patrol the streets of London, and it is estimated that the average London citizen is captured on camera some 200-300 times per day. While this technology is not without controversy, it has been proven effective; it was recently released that surveillance footage was used to trace the last steps of one of the victims of the Ipswich serial killer. Authorities did, however, refuse to state whether the technology was used to apprehend the suspected murderer.
This distinction clearly illustrates the public's fear of the technology. It is a valuable tool for protecting victims or for locating a lost loved one, but it is greatly feared by many as a source of evidence. However, it is safe to assume that it is not just criminals who are opposed to this surveillance; t it is not so much the technology and its potential benefit that people are wary of, but rather the people/institution using the technology that is of concern. Such a concern is definitely warranted, and certainly one can not get through a discussion of this issue without the words 'Big Brother' and 'Orwellian' being thrown out a couple of times. However, it is unfortunate that so much protest in the name of privacy is being wasted on a tool with the potential for a lot of good.
Be the first to comment on this story