Rights Corner
Use of CCTV: means of security or invasion of privacy?
Noor Jahan Punam
It is hard to believe that there are no substantial laws in Bangladesh regulating the use of CCTV or any other technological devices used for security purposes in today's time. In absence of relevant legal provisions within the country, it is desirable to have a look at what laws and regulations are provided by other countries. In so doing, the undeniable relation between use of CCTV and right to privacy will be observed.
If seen on an international basis, right to privacy is best protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the member countries to the Convention are supposed to maintain their laws in compliance with the rules of the Convention. Within Europe the use of CCTV is differentiated in terms of use in public and private places. In the context of use of CCTV, United Kingdom remains at the top. The use and installation of CCTV in United Kingdom is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998. All CCTV controllers are obliged to register with the Information Commissioner in order to make sure that they are operating in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Breach of the provisions under the Act is treated as a crime. The keyword here is proportionality i.e. the use of CCTV must be proportionate in the sense that the data collected via CCTV can only be used when the evidence which lies within is so important that it overrides the right to privacy of the individuals concerned. However, the United Kingdom regulations have caused the proliferation of the use of signage. Thus if someone enters an area where there is CCTV in operation seeing the sign there is an implied consent from that person which can defeat any claim that that person's right to privacy has been infringed.
In the context of use of CCTV, the regulations of Denmark are rather stronger than United Kingdom. The regulations prohibit CCTV surveillance generally. Only owners of certain properties can use CCTV for example, petrol stations. But they are required to let the people under surveillance about it. Police and Public bodies can use CCTV and police can also use it secretly.
In France, there is a requirement that the Prefect of each French administrative region must be informed as to any plans of installing a CCTV and the Prefect will then decide whether to approve the plan by consulting a local committee which will include a judge, a magistrate, a politician and a representative elected by the local trade chamber. The decision is provided by a majority vote and the Prefect will follow the decision on most occasions. The person applying for permission would have to show that the area in which installation of CCTV is required can be subject to theft or attack.
In Sweden, a kind of licensing system works. Everyone who wishes to use CCTV will have to apply to the County Administrative Board providing detailed information about the area covered by surveillance, etc. Signposting is generally the norm. CCTV can only be used for prevention of crime and for detecting reasons. The application will be granted only if the interest which relates to the surveillance outweighs the interest of the individuals under surveillance. However, where owners like banks are the applicant they just have to inform the authority about the installation and it is always deemed to be acceptable. The decision of the Board can nevertheless, be appealed against.
The general norm in using CCTV is that of signposting about the surveillance and whenever a law has to be created as to use of CCTV, right to privacy has to be given a deep thought. It should be a balancing act so as to make sure that enough efforts has been made to provide security and at the same time the privacy of the individuals must be well respected.
The writer has completed Bachelor of Law from University of London.
