The Sydney of City council has decided against giving police the power to use its inner-city cameras for “general intelligence gathering”, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
Apparently, the rules would have allowed police to view footage ”for intelligence gathering on individuals and locations” and increased the scope of the program to include all criminal offences except for the use of illicit substances.
While the sydney city council had originally said that the powers had been approved by a steering committe that included a member of the NSW coucil for civil liberties, the civil liberties council later issued a statement saying it had “reservations” about the plan.
Two things come to mind:
Firstly, this is a good example of the relevance of the “slippery slope” argument that is often made by proponents of civil liberties. The cameras are originally put in to help manage big events and street crime and then later they are used to monitor people who haven’t committed a crime and may well be doing legitimate (but disliked by the state) activities such as protesting.
Secondly, where was the NSW council on civil liberties on this one? Good work to Paul Bibby at the Herald but surely this is something that the civil liberties council should be making a fuss about loudly and clearly?
Amy is a Sydney-based journalist and commentator with an interest in politics, music, culture and evidence-based medicine.
She is currently working as a medical journalist for a series of "Specialist Update" websites, and she has also been published in The Sydney Morning Herald, Crikey, New Matilda, and Vibewire's anthology "Interface".
She was a panelist with the Sydney Writers' Festival in 2007 and 2008, organised the Sydney Writers' Festival event "erotic fan fiction" in 2009, and is a regular broadcaster on FBi radio.
Absolutely. The very fact that the police have asked for access to them is a good reason to stop putting these cameras in.
I’m not sure I agree with the slippery slope argument. It sounds to me like to Police were trying to circumvent the need to get a warrant every time they wanted to view footage of certain areas or people. In my experience the cops are more lazy than over zealous.
Hmmm, yes, but even if it is out of laziness that doesn’t mean that it’s not a slow creep towards greater powers..
I suppose so, but the Police just dont have the manpower or time to be trolling through hours of footage just on the off chance that some evidence or intel can be found. Theres nothing to stop the city of Sydney council from employing people to do just that and then pass the information on to the Police, but again it would be costly and time consuming. Even if they had legislated power to scan all footage I dont think they’d bother – not enough return for the effort. As it stands now if the police are interested in a certain area or person they will present their reasons to a magistrate who will (most times) issue a warrant to seize the video. So what i’m trying to say is that the power is really already there, its just not a direct legislated power.
hmmm yes I agree with you about the powers already being there (in itself worrying). Also, the implication of that is that the vast majority of people will never have to worry about the cameras (which I think is probably correct).
However, what about the cases where a judge might not be willing to give a warrant? I’m thinking about political organising here.
Also – even though a judge would probably grant a warrant on this one – as the Building and construction union has pointed out, in cases of association between union officials and building workers (who have no protected right to meet privately but might not otherwise be caught out)?
Bravo, I think this is a great idea