High tech surveillance industries are big, big business.  And we should be increasingly concerned about how these industries are wooing government.  The Ottawa Citizen reports this week that high tech leaders are “quietly pressing” the federal government to become the trial site for “cutting edge products”.   Governments sometimes find it politically expedient to promote massive surveillance technologies as part of a “tough on crime” agenda, no matter how damaging to citizen rights or how lame or non-existent the evidence is that the surveillance actually reduces crime.  And now we have the high tech industries asking governments to become showcases for their intrusive surveillance technologies.

How worrisome is this development?  Very.  Keep it in mind as you read the following press release about the new Victoria Police Department pilot project of officers rigged out with audio-visual recording devices.  A little experiment in electronic surveillance that is being sponsored by the manufacturers of the devices who have made the equipment available on “loan”.

—

BCCLA Says Police “Body-Worn” Video Cameras Not About Police Accountability

Would you like your privacy invasion super-sized?  Not only is the Victoria Police Department implementing a policy of unlawful mandatory searches for alcohol during Canada Day celebrations, they have announced they will be invading your privacy with warrantless recordings as well.  The Victoria Police have announced the launch of a “pilot project” of police using “body-worn” video cameras attached to sunglasses and bicycle helmets.  The devices, which are for both video and audio recording, are being touted by the police as not only surveillance of citizens, but as a tool for police accountability.

Rob Holmes, BCCLA President said, “’Surprise! You’re on candid camera!’ is not a lawful policing practice.  That’s why the law requires a warrant from a judge before intercepting private communications.  This Victoria Police plan for Canada Day may be just as unlawful as the dragnet alcohol searches.  Little information has been made available to assess this proposed experiment.  The idea that it is being done as a police accountability tool sounds ridiculous.  Officers control when the devices are off and when they are on.  No one is naive enough to imagine that police officers will voluntarily record themselves committing an improper act.”

The Victoria Police have not disclosed which two device manufacturers have “loaned” the devices for this pilot project.  TASER International manufactures these devices and their model allows officers to flick them off for “off-the-record” conversations.  Const. Brendon LeBlanc has been quoted saying that the plan is for officers to inform people they are being recorded, but he asserts at the same time that  they are not required to do so.  The recordings are set to transmit to a desktop system at the police station.

Rob Holmes:  “Police are not free to use surveillance technology at whim.  Important questions about our civil rights and protection are involved.  Let’s not get side-tracked with a diversion over police accountability.  If this were really about monitoring the police, the recordings would go to some neutral third party, like the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner, for review, not to a police station.  It’s no coincidence that the video recordings of police misconduct have come from citizens and not the police. If accountability is really the issue, this isn’t the right model.  The spin the Victoria Police Department is trying here shows a low estimation of what Canadians think of their constitutional rights.”

Tags: Privacy, Victoria PD

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.