Reconciling Privacy and Public Surveillance
A clear indication of society’s steady march towards the digital revolution is the incorporation of data-intensive technologies in urban spaces. In large scale applications, this has resulted in the concept of smart cities (also, intelligent or cognitive cities).
One of the ways in which a smart city functions is through the conduct of surveillance and monitoring in public areas—in some cases, even in commercial or private areas, too—which may come in various forms. For instance, CCTV security cameras are usually installed to deter crimes or at least help identify their perpetrators. There are also other technologies like pedestrian traffic sensors, traffic drones, and dashboard cameras which, while less likely to identify specific individuals, can still be used for such purpose if combined with other available data. In some jurisdictions, the police and other law enforcement units also wear body cameras to prevent abuse and help facilitate accountability among these uniformed personnel. Together, these tools can expose people’s movements and behavior which the government can then use and draw conclusions from to assist in its administrative work.
Given the way these tools operate, they inevitably capture raw footage of everyday scenes involving random people without the latter’s prior consent. This can be tricky if they happen to record private moments or conversations, and alarming for those keen on protecting their right to privacy. It’s easy to see why. Such a setting has every potential to evolve into the Orwellian dystopia privacy advocates everywhere have been warning about. It only takes one leader or one administration with a predilection for totalitarianism, before a massive data collection operation is used to curtail individual rights and freedoms.
That being said, does this mean though that we should simply scrap the idea of smart cities altogether? Of course not. That’s like saying humans should simply forget about driving because there is a risk of the car crashing. In an ideal world where people only have good intentions, having a wealth of information about a city is an advantage with numerous useful applications. All data gathered can be used in policy-making, governance, and urban planning. From a research perspective, they can also be used to explore countless theories could contribute to various fields such as the social sciences, healthcare, and economics.
On the other hand, neither does this mean that we should just sacrifice our privacy as individuals in the exchange for the advancement of collective goals. Among other things, it would go against the ideals that modern democracies continue to espouse for even today. For us Filipinos, in particular, we consider our right to privacy so fundamental that it is enshrined in our Constitution. As such, it should not be completely abandoned even for the sake of the common good.
What emerges then is the perpetual dilemma of finding a delicate balance between providing too much or too little freedom. And the solution may be in looking at the situation by posing a different question: is surveillance really the problem, or is it the possible misuse of the information it produces?
One could argue that surveillance tools, if used conscientiously, need not threaten people’s privacy rights. This can be achieved if certain conditions are met. For instance, there must be clearly-defined areas where surveillance may take place. Consistent with the principle of minimization, they should be confined only to critical regions where some form of monitoring is necessary. Access-restriction policies must also be in place. The people involved in a surveillance program must also realize the weight of their responsibility and its significance in safeguarding people’s rights. Whoever they are, they must be governed by solid ethical guidelines. Finally, there must be a strict retention and disposal policy for the recorded information. This ought to help prevent unmitigated tracking of people’s actions.
From a general perspective, asserting that privacy is more important than societal progress, or vice-versa, would be tantamount to overlooking (if not outright denying) the complexity of this dilemma. Only by approaching it using a balancing-of-interest mechanism—and on a case-to-case basis, at that—will keep us from falling into the absolutist trap of believing surveillance is always evil or that privacy is absolute. The goal should be to find that sweet spot between maximizing the use of technology, and according full respect for individual human rights.
