“The camera never lies,” goes the old adage. But how true is that?
CCTV is a popular form of digital evidence but it can be unreliable and problematic.
AFP via Getty Images
Security companies suggest that criminals take advantage of the fact that many home and business security systems get compromised during power outages.
An app can give you a few seconds of warning before an earthquake strikes.
Yichuan Cao/NurPhoto via Getty Images
When researchers look at CCTV footage of how people really react during earthquakes – as opposed to what they report after the fact – it looks like alerts aren’t yet inspiring protective action.
A UK court recently ruled that a man’s smart doorbell invaded his neighbour’s privacy, and he now faces being required to pay damages. But this kind of situation is avoidable.
CCTV technology has evolved in the decades since it was first introduced.
The CCTV ecosystem is evolving – but it’s still a sparse patchwork with limited efficacy in reducing or prosecuting crime.
Smith Collection/Gado/Sipa USA
There are questions being raised about the legality of scanning, storing and sharing facial images. The law currently doesn’t prohibit even highly intrusive levels of surveillance by private entities.
‘Smart cities’, featuring networks of automatic lights, video cameras and environmental sensors, have been hailed as an enhancement to urban life. But they are also tools of surveillance and control.
Surveillance software that identifies people from CCTV is eroding human rights and democracy.
Most people follow some form of moral code, but to what extent they abide by these rules does differ in various situations.
Camera never lies.
If you thought police surveillance was mere CCTV, it’s time to catch up on what’s happening on the other side of the lens.
The Northern Territory government is expanding the CCTV surveillance network.
Darwin is one of the aspiring ‘smart cities’ that is adopting Chinese technology that can identify and track individuals. Add changes in Australian law, and we have the makings of a surveillance state.
In the Boston bombing case, police used CCTV footage to help identify the suspects.
These days surveillance isn’t just CCTV. Police now have access to body cams, drones and facial recognition systems – and it’s helping police not only solve crime, but prevent it too.
CCTV cameras are becoming a “normal” feature of public life, tracking peoples’ movements as a matter of course.
As CCTV cameras become more widespread, it’s becoming more difficult for people to protect their locational privacy in public.
A skit on China’s English language TV station CCTV’s Spring Festival Gala featuring ‘blackface’ actors has gone viral.
China’s offensive ‘blackface’ skit intended to highlight the positive aspects of China-Africa relations, has done the opposite.
Many more faces to be added to a national database, but will it make us any safer?
The COAG agreement to share our biometric data - including some photo ID - is an erosion of our privacy and will give people a false sense of comfort.
A reliance on security infrastructure to resolve embedded social problems may be misguided.
Family violence will not always be ‘obvious’ to CCTV. Therefore measures must be put in place to ensure that footage cannot be used against victims should circumstances of violence be challenged.
After more than 20 years and millions of cameras, UK’s first attempt to regulate CCTV cameras may be too little too late.
Who owns the digital data recorded and uploaded by CCTV operators?
In a recent report highlighting ‘shortcomings’ in security and welfare services in offshore detention, six terabytes of data was ‘missing’. Don’t expect to see it any time soon.
CCTV footage is often seen to be decisive – an authoritative and objective witness that can tell us ‘what really happened’.
While potentially helpful in resolving extraordinary cases, an over-reliance on CCTV images to tell ‘the truth’ risks perpetuating certain myths regarding violence against women.
Disturbing images such as this from the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre have shocked the nation and prompted a royal commission.
The use of surveillance cameras raises difficult issues for the law in balancing privacy with exposure that is in the public interest – and perhaps it’s time that balance was reviewed.