Staying ahead of surveillance
Technology has revolutionised crime detection in ways that are not only taken for granted but the benefits of which are, for the most part, not controversial. From DNA testing of crime scenes to searching mobile phone and banking records, the ability of New Zealand’s police to track the activities of alleged criminals and tie them to the key events of a crime has offered new layers of evidence used to gain convictions.
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) has played a significant role in this. No-one out in public can be truly confident that what they are doing is not being recorded on video. While many of these cameras are privately owned, the images captured can be crucial.
No-one wants to turn back the clock on using technology to catch criminals but as new systems emerges, it’s critical that the Government ensures there are measures in place to cope with the misuse of surveillance equipment.
Police are looking to improve surveillance with a network of CCTV cameras, capable of harnessing new facial-recognition technology. While little detail has been given about how this system might be an improvement on what currently exists, the department described its current facial-recognition technology as ‘‘out-dated and limited’’.
According to police statements, photos from a network of cameras could be sent directly to officers to be shown to witnesses.
Giving criminals fewer places to hide would be welcomed by police but there is good reason for caution. Virtually any technology that can be used to monitor criminals can be misused to monitor innocent people.
In general, New Zealand’s police force is exemplary in terms of a lack of corruption but there are conspicuous examples of officers misusing the resources at their disposal for nefarious reasons.
Less than a year ago, 34-year-old former Auckland policeman Jeremy Malifa was convicted of using police systems to gain information on women he was attracted to before approaching them.
It’s not difficult to imagine the scope of facial-recognition technology to help police track people’s movements.
The case of former Invercargill constable Ben McLean, who killed his estranged wife and shot her new lover, shows officers are capable of grave personal flaws.
Added powers which could be used to monitor movements could have serious consequences for people who have committed no crime whatsoever.
Inappropriate snooping is not unique to the police. In 2013, when troubled cricket star Jesse Ryder was left fighting for his life in Christchurch Hospital after being attacked outside a bar, Canterbury District Health Board clinicians who were not linked to his care checked his medical records. It would be foolish to assume that other such breaches do not go undetected.
Snooping may be an inevitable downside to technology and data-gathering, both of which will continue improving over time. Not harnessing that power may lead to criminals being able to escape detection.
But just as important is trying as much as possible to keep regulation and procedures around that technology up to speed with development, to at least minimise misuse and, when it is used wrongly, to punish and shame those caught out.
Inappropriate snooping is not unique to the police.