Gross invasions of personal privacy in Grahamstown

I am disturbed by the proliferation of security cameras around town and particularly those in public spaces. Among others, Rhodes, St Andrew’s, Kingswood, and Hi-Tec all now have cameras facing or directly filming public roads and have therefore summarily chosen to invade our privacy in the name of “security”.

I use “security” in inverted commas because we have no idea how that footage is stored, how long it is retained for, who has access to it, and what they are using it for. What controls exist to safeguard our privacy; to ensure adequate security of the recording equipment; and to prevent employees from misusing the footage? Who is auditing these measures? Examples of identity theft facilitated by camera footage abound, and so our trust in these institutions to do the right thing is misplaced. We're trading perceived “security” for a much, much graver risk.

The European Commission has found that, because of the sophistication of facial and gait detection, video footage should be considered biometric information – much like a fingerprint. Our own legislation, the Protection of Personal Information Act, is derived from the European privacy directive and itself confirms that biometrics are personal information – such that once that act commences, consent will be required to collect and store them. Moreover, the new legislation will hold those who do keep personal information legally accountable for its safe storage and destruction.

Consent is easy to obtain on private land through appropriate signage. I make an informed decision each time I enter a shop in spite of the sign at the door telling me I will be filmed. That consent is therefore freely given – I can shop elsewhere.

However, it’s a completely different case in public spaces where I’m forced to choose between two constitutional rights: privacy and freedom of movement. If I use the public road, I give up my right to privacy; if choose not to “consent”, I cannot use a public road and I have given up my right to freedom of movement. Moreover these measures have been forced upon us by private institutions with absolutely no public consultation. Thus my “consent” to being filmed is neither informed nor freely given, which are the basic tests for valid consent.

I find it ironic that South Africa as a society appears to see nothing wrong with constant invasions of personal privacy, despite clear evidence that this information is being abused. Europe can trace its strong privacy legislation back to World War ll, where the Nazi government used personal information to systematically target population groups. As a result, Europeans, and particularly the Germans, understandably tend to greatly value personal privacy. Did our own apartheid government not do exactly the same...? Yet people continue to blindly fill in personal details on registers when entering buildings; they “consent” to being searched where no reasonable grounds exist; they hand over copies of identity documents to anyone who asks; and they allow themselves to be filmed in public spaces. Nobody asks “why do you need this information?”, “what are you going to use this information for?”, or “how are you going to ensure my privacy?” People react strongly when identity theft occurs, not realising that by allowing these things to become normal we are all complicit.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who watches the watchmen)?

Guy Halse