Expanded Vancouver CCTV camera use proposed by councillor to deter crime

With crime a growing concern for many in Vancouver, one city councillor wants to see more CCTV cameras to try to deter violence and help solve cases.

Councillor Melissa De Genova points to other big cities that use CCTV cameras more broadly, along with facial recognition, as a tool in crime prevention and investigations.

“The United Kingdom and places like New York City are light years beyond where we are and they’re actually using that technology. I’m simply asking for CCTV cameras that are not live monitored where if an incident is reported, the police have that tool to go back and look to see what they can do to aid in their investigation,” she explained.

“I hear from people every day who don’t feel safe walking down the street in their neighbourhood. I’m talking about families, I’m talking about people who are on their way to work, and it’s not just after dark — it’s in daylight hours as well.”

However, the technology can come with a whole range of privacy and ethical concerns, with questions about who’s being targeted, how the data is stored, and whether the algorithms are biased, prevalent.

De Genova says she’s not asking for facial recognition use in Vancouver just yet, only suggesting the city should consider it, along with increased CCTV use.

CCTV already being used, Vancouver councillor argues

The councillor notes Vancouver used cameras for safety reasons during the 2010 Olympics and still uses them during the annual Celebration of Light fireworks festival.

“In an age when everyone is filming everyone else with smartphones, I think it’s important that we look at, while there may be some privacy issues, overall, this is going to be a tool to assist people. And considering we already see smartphones everywhere, in every public space, I don’t think that this should be a big deal,” she explained, pointing to recent stranger attacks and other crime that needs to be deterred.

“We should be doing all that we can to make sure people feel safe in the city and that we deter violent crime, and that we work together to make sure that those who are committing violent crimes aren’t harming other people in our city.”

She feels making CCTV more widespread would offer better, more consistent coverage than having police ask for private security footage.

De Genova tells CityNews she’s inquired with the Vancouver Police Department about how CCTV cameras could help investigators. She points to examples in which CCTV camera use was said to have aided police in their investigations of crime in the city.

However, she says cameras can also deter other types of crime — not just ones of violence.

“Also, it can be a deterrent when we look at other issues that we’re having in our city, like graffiti, especially in areas like Chinatown. It’s really important to consider CCTV cameras as a deterrent to make sure that we’re helping businesses that are buried and just trying to recover after the pandemic,” she said.

Surveillance expansion will do more harm than good: critics

While De Genova points to increased safety as the goal with expanded CCTV camera use in the city, some argue it won’t have the desired effect.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is also expressing deep concern, questioning both the “necessity and the proportionality of expanding police-use of video surveillance of residents in Vancouver.”

“Under B.C.’s Privacy Law, police are allowed to collect personal information that is necessary for their job, but that’s a high standard, which means that we don’t need blanket statements about the need to protect the public from violence to justify this kind of expansion of what really is a form of mass surveillance, even though it’s one that we are very used to,” explained Brenda McPhail, director of the Privacy, Technology, and Surveillance Program at the CCLA.

McPhail says there should be analysis, which is publicly released and done in consultation with community members, showing “there will be a discernable difference to public safety” at each location where a camera is proposed.

The CCLA is refuting De Genova’s claims that CCTV cameras can deter criminal activity, with McPhail pointing to data that suggests any deterrent effect is “really brief, if it happens at all.”

Related articles: 

• Police-reported hate crimes across Canada rose during pandemic: Statistics Canada

• Vancouver police report 60 assaults over Family Day weekend, many unprovoked

The organization also takes issue with the suggestion of expanding use of facial recognition.

“The fact that the motion ties the new camera surveillance to a potential use of facial recognition tools and cites cities in other foreign jurisdictions as a justification ups the ante of invasiveness, expands the privacy concerns, and ignores the particularities of Canadian law when it comes to video surveillance and facial recognition technology,” explained McPhail.

“In fact, the Vancouver Police Board actually declared a kind of moratorium on facial recognition technologies in April of 2021 because they acknowledged that our legal framework is woefully inadequate to protect against a tool that has the capacity to make us permanently identifiable to remove anonymity as we move about our communities and take place in the daily life of our city.”

She says comparing smartphone cameras to CCTV is not a fair one, adding there’s a big difference between the two.

“Intuitively it might feel really logical to make the comparison … but there’s a big difference. We acknowledge that difference in our society by the fact that there are laws that govern how police are allowed to film people, and it’s because we give police such extraordinary power over our lives in order to do their difficult and important jobs. Because they have those extraordinary powers that our fellow residents don’t have … it means they are subject to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. So we need to think through very carefully the degree to which we’re willing to allow police to intrude into our private lives on our public streets,” McPhail told CityNews.

“The equation between everybody has a smartphone and we should let police surveil us more is not logical, it’s a fallacy.”

McPhail also stresses that not everyone experiences police surveillance equally, and that not everyone will feel safer with expanded CCTV camera use.

“Those experiences are grounded in the very real lived experiences of system racism and discriminations that data tells us often directs the watchful eye of law enforcement. So people who are Black, who are Indigenous, who are otherwise racialized don’t experience surveillance in the way that we do, and communities have to be given a reasonable say in whether or not they wish to participate in an expansion of surveillance into their communities and streets,” she added, noting cameras cost money, and perhaps those dollars could go to better use.

The motion also has many locals talking. Some people have taken to Twitter to share their criticisms, one person writing, “We can learn from many cities who have adopted mass surveillance measures that cameras do not increase safety, especially not for women.”

A Vancouver City Councilor will be introducing a motion to increase CCTV cameras for the purpose of public safety. We can learn from many cities who have adopted mass surveillance measures that cameras do not increase safety, especially not for women.

— Mahtab (@mahtby) April 20, 2022

Serena Jackson, who is running for Vancouver Park Board with OneCity in the upcoming municipal elections, says “increased surveillance is not a solution” and is instead “dangerous.”

“CCTV is susceptical (sic) to abuse in all kinds of ways and any potential benefits are outweighed by the disproportionate impact on the most marginalized people who are already over policed,” Jackson writes.

The people who will be most harmed by this have the least access to power and greater fear of speaking out. I strongly encourage folks to sign up to speak or write in in opposition of this motion here: https://t.co/CrBLvZyUtt

— Jackson (@lovefromjackson) April 20, 2022

De Genova’s motion is scheduled for the next city council meeting, set for April 28, when community members will also be able to voice their opinions.

She is asking staff to approach the police department and privacy commissioner and come back with a report later this year.