By John van Gurp

THE NOV. 3 editorial, "Watchful eyes on city streets," was very topical and interesting. In response, here are some clarifications to balance how the writing relies on common fears and misconceptions to make its argument that surveillance cameras are good, and that those who question their rapidly growing use are overly concerned and perhaps needlessly fearful.

The editorial states, "When approached about the issue, most ordinary citizens don't seem to have a problem with (cameras)." It seems unlikely that the conclusion is supported with any kind of commonly accepted polling methodology. If the poll used was the informal front-page poll, readers should be aware of that and the editorialist should not purport to know what most citizens believe based on that unmeritorious source.

The editorial touches also upon the topic of sexual voyeurism. It states that there is only a remote likelihood of video showing illicit sex, mooning or flashing being kept for personal collection, or for Internet publication. There is no reasonable basis for such a conclusion. The Internet has an enormous amount of such material. It's a big business, and its existence is relatively common knowledge.

In a Canadian Press article published in this paper on the same day as the editorial, Sgt. Dick Melnychuk of the Saskatoon Police was quoted as saying a change to Canada's voyeurism laws is badly needed: "Our Criminal Code and our laws aren't keeping up with technology and ways to use technology to commit offences." The increased availability of video recording, combined with the equipment's shrinking size, has spawned a new generation of peeping Toms, Melnychuk said in the article. I'm not suggesting the cameras in downtown Halifax are used for this purpose; however, it certainly refutes the editorial's case that illicit recording is an unlikely occurrence.

Perhaps the most important question in this debate is one which the editorial writer raises, but does not discuss in any depth. How much privacy is a citizen entitled to in a public place? This is really the crux of the issue.

Former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest gave his opinion in 1999, in relation to the RCMP's installation of a video surveillance camera on a public street in Kelowna, B.C., that we should all be free to move about without fear of being systematically observed by agents of the state. Alan F. Westin, in Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1970), states, "Privacy . . . is at the heart of liberty in a modern state."

La Forest also stated that police video surveillance, with or without continuous recording, violates Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 8 makes some very strong statements that contradict the notions suggested by the editorial.

These comments apply to the situation where police forces use security cameras to watch citizens on public streets. The editorial interchanges examples and arguments from both private security camera installations and state-owned cameras, such as the cameras proposed for Antigonish. It uses the example of tourists recording video or taking snapshots to draw a parallel with police and state-owned video monitoring and recording of private citizens. These are very different situations. It makes the editorial's position weak. It is important to make this distinction, however, because public acceptance of privately owned video surveillance cameras in public spaces will make it much more palatable to the public for police forces to install devices in the future.

Public acceptance of any number of private or state-owned cameras monitoring law-abiding citizens on public property is tantamount to giving approval for proliferation of cameras and recording devices. The technology is cheap and readily available; and unless there is some degree of control, cameras will soon be installed in many more locations. The technology is beginning to incorporate face recognition software, behaviour pattern recognition and other devices that can be used to trigger events. It's a very slippery slope leading to gross intrusions into our basic rights and freedoms.

In conclusion, it's gratifying to see public debate about the efficacy and appropriateness of video camera surveillance systems, whether privately or state controlled, and whether on private or public property. Both the British Columbia and Alberta provincial governments have published formal guidelines for the installation and use of video surveillance. It's not frivolous, and I am hoping that Nova Scotia follows their example. There is an urgent and legitimate need for controls.

John van Gurp lives in Halifax.