DON'T SMILE, THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE TAKING YOUR PICTURE

As various communities experiment with surveillance in public areas,
some are sounding an alarm about privacy rights.

Barbara Yaffe Vancouver Sun So much of what we do is regulated by the
state. But while it is difficult to live with the awesome power of
government, anarchy would surely prevail without it.

And so, individuals living under the yoke of the all-powerful state
are prepared to tolerate its intrusions as long as they do not become
intolerable.

Accordingly, Vancouverites will now have to decide if the use of video
surveillance in public places is something they will tolerate.

The issue arises as police contemplate installing 22 video cameras to
assist with law enforcement in the urban war zone that is the Downtown
Eastside.

The cameras already are deployed in several eastern cities-- Hull,
Sudbury and Brockville. Owen Sound thought about it, then rejected the
idea because of privacy concerns.

Will the use of such cameras soon become commonplace?

At what point will public surveillance cause the rest of us to start
feeling spooked and uncomfortable?

Already, we have photo radar in B.C. and authorities are about to
install cameras to nab red-light runners.

If government moves to use surveillance in public places with the
vigour with which it has come to tax us, by golly, we should be out
marching to prevent even one more public eyeball from being installed
on city streets.

Cameras are a relatively new enforcement instrument and have yet to
meet the full test of public scrutiny or to be reined in by
legislation.

Photo radar opponent Ian Tootill believes Ottawa should introduce a
law to regulate public surveillance devices. He says the issue
increasingly is a national one because various communities are opting
to experiment with surveillance.

Tootill has been attempting to meet with his MP, Hedy Fry (Liberal --
Vancouver Centre), to discuss the privacy concerns, but has been
unable to connect with her despite many months of trying.

Libby Davies (NDP -- Vancouver East), in whose riding the cameras are
to be installed, said this week she believes the money could be more
wisely spent. She's also concerned "about the long-term implications
of introducing security cameras on the streets."

Beyond the fact the cameras will make Downtown Eastside streets even
less inviting than they are now, their use surely does not make sense
in the current context.

Consider, the pushers on Hastings Street are not exactly discreet
about their pursuit. People do their deals and inject in open view.
Whatever the cameras can pick up, police officers can, too -- easily.

Making the arrests is not the tough part of the job, by all accounts.
The tough part is getting convictions and long sentences for the
pushers. And, just as important, providing addiction treatment for the
users.

Even if the pushers receive harsh sentences, you've got to wonder what
prison would do for them beyond increasing their business
opportunities.

Federal Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAuley has just ordered a review
of drug and alcohol programs in the prison system following studies
showing extensive use by inmates. Incredibly, thousands of inmates are
using cocaine, heroin or marijuana daily!

With respect to the drug users, what will the police department lenses
do for them?

The $400,000 cost of the surveillance devices would be better spent,
as Davies suggests, on treatment services.

Victoria only now is increasing detox beds for youth. B.C. will fund
75 treatment beds to add to the paltry 42 we have now across B.C.

Again, because of lack of funds, the Downtown Eastside Youth Activity
Society was able to serve only 248 drug-addicted youths in an
eight-month period last year, despite receiving 2,500 requests for
help.

Further, if drug dealers and users get camera shy, all they will do is
mosey over to another part of town. What will police do then? Move the
cameras?

This is what happened in the early 1990s in Tacoma, Wash., one of the
first North American jurisdictions to use the cameras.

The crime-ridden area of Hilltop in Tacoma became more civil after the
cameras were installed, but police reported the bad guys had scampered
into other neighbourhoods.

A case can be made that the cameras will help authorities in a limited
way in dealing with crime in specific areas.

But there are so many arguments against their use that B.C. should
resist further initiatives involving disembodied surveillance.

At the very least, the community should first experiment with pilot
projects. And that only after government legislates limitations and
rules governing public surveillance.

It is premature to endorse a plan for the Downtown Eastside that looks
to be both half-baked and dangerously invasive.

Barbara Yaffe's column appears Tuesdays through Fridays.
byaffe@pacpress.southam.ca