Visual surveillance and the prevention of terrorism: What about the checks and balances?

Abstract

Visual surveillance has become a key technological tool in the prevention of terrorism and other serious crimes. From a human rights perspective, however, its use requires proper checks and balances, especially because there is a risk that – quoting Mathiesen on Foucault – panoptic surveillance, where the few view the many, develops. Furthermore, when public authorities use visual surveillance in an excessive or arbitrary fashion, they alienate citizens and reduce opportunities for effective co-operation. Henceforth, the need for proper checks and balances for visual surveillance is maintained in this article, which focuses on the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, as both countries have experience with preventing ‘home grown’ terrorism and with visual surveillance in public spaces.

Keywords:

• Visual surveillance
• prevention of terrorism
• human rights

Notes

Radio Netherlands Worldwide, ‘Dutch Border Police Happy with CCTV Cameras’, 2011. Accessed 29 March 2011 http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/dutch-border-police-happy-cctv-cameras; The Associated Press, ‘U.K. Privacy Watchdog Seeks More Powers’, New York Times, 2 May 2007.

C. Welsh and D. Farrington, ‘Is CCTV Effective in Preventing Crime in Public Places?’, in Evidence Based Policing, ed. E. de Wree, E. Devroe, W. Broer and P. van der Laan (Cahier Politiestudies, 2011) 2010/4, no. 20, 265–268.

Surveillance Studies Network, ‘An Introduction to the Surveillance Society’, 2010. Accessed 6 June 2011 http://www.surveillance-studies.net/?page_id=119. See also; D.M. Wood and C.W.R. Webster, ‘Living in a Surveillance Societies: The Normalization of Surveillance in Europe and the Threat of a Bad Example’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, 5, no. 2 (2009): 259–273; D. Lyon, Surveillance Studies: An Overview (London: Polity Press, 2007); C. Norris, ‘The Intensification and Bifurcation of Surveillance in British Criminal Justice Policy’, European Journal on Crime Policy and Research 13 (2007): 139–158.

Mathiesen develops Foucault's use of Bentham's concept of ‘Panopticon’ in T. Mathiesen, ‘The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault's “Panopticon” Revisited’, Theoretical Criminology 50 (1997): 215–234. See also: S. Cohen, Vision of Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985); M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage, 1979).

A. Schreijenberg and G.H.J. Homburg, ‘Steeds meer Beeld: Evaluatie vijf jaar cameratoezicht op openbare plaatsen’, 2010. Accessed 22 June 2011 http://www.hetccv.nl/instrumenten/Cameratoezicht-publiek/landelijk-steeds-meer-beeld.

Privacy International, ‘Leading Surveillance Societies in the EU and the World 2007’, 2007. Accessed 22 June 2011 https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/leading-surveillance-societies-eu-and-world-2007. Also see: D.M. Wood, ‘A Report on the Surveillance Society’, for the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network, 2006. Accessed 22 June 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_06_surveillance.pdf and BBC News, 20 July 2009, ‘The Statistics of CCTV’.

A. Stuzer and M. Zehnder, ‘Camera Surveillance as a Measure of Counterterrorism?’, Economics of Security Working Paper, 2010, 4. Accessed 3 July 2011 http://wwz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/wwz/redaktion/wipo/Alois_Stutzer/WP34_CCTV%20and%20Terrorism.pdf.

Market and Business Development, ‘UK CCTV Market Research Report’, 2011, 31–45.

United Kingdom Home Office, ‘Consultation on a Code of Practice Relating to Surveillance Camera's: Impact Assessment’, 2011. Accessed 15 July 2011 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2011-cctv/cons-ia-cctv?view=Binary.

Schreijenberg and Homburg, 1.

N. La Balme and E. De Tinguy, ‘The Changing Landscape, United in Diversity?’, in Challenge Europe: Is Big Brother Watching You – And Who is Watching Big Brother?, The European Policy Centre, December (2008): pp. 9–15, p. 12.

J.M. Ackerman, ‘Social Accountability in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Discussion’, Social Development Papers: Participation and Civic Engagement, No. 82, March 2005. Accessed 16 June 2011 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/214574-1116506074750/20542263/FINALAckerman.pdf. For a more elaborate discussion about accountability see P.K. Blind, ‘Accountability in Public Service Delivery: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Concept’, Expert group meeting Engaging Citizens to Enhance Public Sector Accountability and Prevent Corruption in the Delivery of Public Services, Vienna, Austria 1–8 and 11–13 July 2011. Accessed 21 July 2011 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan046363.pdf.

UN Human Rights Council, ‘Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism’, Human Rights Council, 28 December 2009. Accessed 3 July 2011 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/docs/A_HRC_13_37_AEV.pdf, pp. 29–31.

Venice Commission, ‘Opinion: On Video Surveillance in Public Places by Public Authorities and the Protection of Human Rights’ 2007, CDL-AD(2007)014, Study No. 404/2006. Accessed 4 July 2011 http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2007/CDL-AD(2007)014-e.asp, para. 72–78.

European Forum for Urban Security; P. Neyroud and E. Disley, ‘Technology and Policing: Implications for Fairness and Legitimacy’, Policing 2, no. 2 (2008): 226–232.

House of Commons, ‘Protection of Freedoms Bill’, 2011. Accessed 4 July 2011 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.20-26.html.

H. Kitchin, ‘Visual Surveillance’, in Overlooked: Visual Surveillance and Personal Privacy in Modern Britain, ed. G. Crossman, H. Kitchin, R. Kuna, M. Skrein, J. Russell (London: Liberty, 2007), 35–47/110–1115. Accessed 4 July 2011 http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/overlooked-privacy-report-december-2007.pdf.

Justice, ‘Code of Practice Relating to Surveillance Cameras: Justice Response to Home Office Consultation’, 2011. Accessed 4 July 2011 http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/271/JUSTICE-response-to-CCTV-cnsltn-may-11.pdf.

House of Lords’ Committee on the Constitution, ‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State, 2009, p. 26. Accessed 5 June 2011 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/18ii.pdf.

See for example, Municipal Amersfoort, ‘Evaluatie cameratoezicht. Ervaring met verplaatsbare camera's in Amersfoort’ 2006. Accessed 8 July http://www.amersfoort.nl/docs/internet/_over_amersfoort/_feiten_en_cijfers/onderzoeken/EVALUATIE%20CAMERATOEZICHT.pdf; Muni-cipal Amsterdam, ‘Vernieuwd Beleidskader Cameratoezicht’, 2003. Accessed 8 July 2011 http://www.eenveiligamsterdam.nl/publish/pages/164755/vernieuwd_beleidskader_cameratoezicht.pdf; Municipal Alkmaar, ‘Evaluatie Cameratoezicht Alkmaar’, 2005. Accessed 8 July 2011 http://www.alkmaar.nl/gemeente/webcms/site/Feiten%20en%20cijfers/Leefbaarheid%20&%20Veiligheid/Onderzoek/files/p_28071.pdf.

Brouwer Commission, ‘Gewoon Doen, beschermen van veiligheid en persoonlijke levenssfeer’, 2009, p. 26. Accessed 6 July 2011 http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2009/01/22/rapport-gewoon-doen-beschermen-van-veiligheid-en-persoonlijke-levenssfeer/rapportgewoondoenbeschermenvanveiligheidenpersoonlijkelevenssfeer.pdf.

Ibid., p. 2.

M.A.H. Van der Woude, ‘Is Terrorismebestrijding ten koste van de persoonlijke levenssfeer noodzakelijk?’, Strafblad 2. no. 7 (2009): 163–174.

Neyroud and Dislay, 229.

T. Choudhury and Helen Fenwick, The Impact of Counter-terrorism Measures on Muslim Communities. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series no. 72 (Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011), 36.