By Darce Fardy

IN A NOV. 3 editorial, "Watchful eyes on the street," The Herald took what I regard to be a simplistic view of an important issue with respect to personal privacy.

Thirteen years ago, former Justice Gerald La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada raised an alarm when he wrote: "To permit unrestricted video surveillance by agents of the state would seriously diminish the degree of privacy we can reasonably expect to enjoy in a free society. . . . We must always be alert to the fact that modern methods of electronic surveillance have the potential, if uncontrolled, to annihilate privacy."

In Nova Scotia and in every other province and territory in the country, and at the federal level, there are laws with respect to the collection and use of personal information by public bodies. The definition of "personal information" in the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (FOIPOP) includes an individual's image. The act covers municipalities and, of course, the police.

Videotaping law-abiding citizens as a crime prevention measure is a growing practice in Canada and there's not much that can be done about it, particularly if the citizens find it acceptable.

Given the lack of public debate, is it reasonable to conclude that most of us accept that the best way to keep people and property safe, and to keep criminals off the streets, is to trace the movements of all of us? And have we accepted that the police cannot control crime unless, at least in some areas, we are all put under video surveillance?

So why are we so unconcerned? The answer of many appears to be: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I believe we do have something to fear even if our conduct is beyond reproach.

Privacy International, a privacy rights organization, wonders whether, if we become desensitized to video surveillance, will we soon accept other forms of surveillance? Simon Davies of that organization wrote: ". . . (A) nation that happily accepts visual surveillance without debate may easily and happily accept a range of other forms of surveillance, from wire tapping to identity cards."

There is little or no evidence that video surveillance works as a crime deterrent. In Britain, the lead nation in implementing closed circuit television (CCTV), crime is increasing. A Scottish chief constable said: "I don't believe that just because you've got cameras in a city centre that everyone says, 'Oh well, we're going to give up crime and get a job.' "

Even if citizens "feel" safer, they should balance any benefit from that feeling with the reality of being watched while they are going about their law-abiding business.

Video surveillance may be necessary at times, for good reasons. But it should not be used, as the editorial suggested, merely because the police and the business community find it "useful."

The Nova Scotia FOIPOP Act allows police to gather personal information, which includes video surveillance, "for the purpose of law enforcement." I would argue that the video surveillance of law-abiding citizens going about their business is not a matter of law enforcement. The police should ask themselves whether such an intrusion into our lives is really worth an unproven security benefit.

While conceding that video surveillance for law enforcement purposes is appropriate in "limited and defined" circumstances, privacy commissioners have developed guidelines for public bodies to follow when they are determining whether to install video surveillance in public places. These guidelines reflect the requirements of the FOIPOP Act.

Video surveillance should be used as a last resort. Other measures of deterrence or detection should be used first.

Police should be prepared to justify the use of cameras on the basis of verifiable, specific reports of incidents of crime.

An assessment should be made of the actual and potential effects video surveillance would have on people's privacy.

Extensive consultations should be held with citizens.

A rationale for the surveillance should be provided to citizens.

Reasonable and adequate warning should be given when video surveillance begins. Prominent signs should be erected to notify the public of the presence of cameras and to show the perimeters of the surveillance areas. (The city of London, Ont., follows this practice as a matter of policy.)

Assurances should be provided that access to the monitors, or to videotapes, is restricted to properly authorized persons.

The private sector, not covered by the Nova Scotia legislation, would be well advised to put up signs near their cameras and be prepared to explain why they have been put up and what, if any, benefit has been demonstrated since the cameras were installed. The private sector of Nova Scotia will have its own legislated obligations to protect personal privacy beginning Jan. 1, 2004 when the federal Personal Privacy and Data Protection Act comes into force in this province.

Darce Fardy is review officer, Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.