The debate over installing CCTV cameras in public spaces was discussed at the House legal committee on Wednesday, highlighting the always-tricky balance between security and privacy.
At the House, proponents argued that the cameras were essential for crime prevention, while opponents worried about personal freedoms and misuse of surveillance data.
Supporters also argued that it was a useful tool for law enforcement. Police have cited cases where CCTV has helped solve a slew of cases. Committee chair and Disy MP Nicos Tornaritis said cameras were already widely used in other European countries.
However, detractors warn of the equally-valid potential to go down the slippery slope into a totalitarian surveillance state.
Akel MP Aristos Damianos said the proposal was “naïve” and though technology could be used to fight crime, it was insufficient on its own.
Even though murder comes with a life sentence, there were still killings in broad daylight, he said. Similarly, he added, cameras at sports venues and on the roads hadn’t significantly reduced offences in those areas.
In a society struggling with increasing violence, including at football matches, and the spate of attacks on foreign delivery drivers, the argument for surveillance as a deterrent can be seen as valid in many respects.
It also affords the opportunity for authorities to make the case that there’s no other option. This is a gift to any state, even those without an obvious totalitarian bent.
Our previous government often seemed to relish the use of executive decrees during Covid, sometimes making up “social measures” – like dancing around tables – with no basis in science.
If you trust the authorities completely that’s fine. But you never know who’s going to get elected next.
The criminal behaviour of the minority, even those who commit minor offences, just hands government more power on a plate. The law-abiding majority then end up being surveilled going about their business in public – whether they like it or not.
It’s also difficult to see how there can be a balance between security and liberty when the authorities are the ones holding all the cards in both respects.
There is a Latin phrase, attributed to the Roman poet Juvenal that says: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Roughly translated as: “Who watches the watchers?”
It’s very easy for politicians to spout reassuring words about privacy and data protection by citing the existence of a framework – one that’s couched in so much legal jargon it’s like a foreign language to most people.
Even a Bar Association representative at Wednesday’s committee raised concerns over the risk of abuse of the data collected– including misuse by political persons.
This is in essence part of the problem. When society sees their “rulers” often act like they’re above the law, many others will see no reason why they shouldn’t do the same.
So while it’s easy to decry the rise of ‘Big Brother’ as most of us do, there is an argument that the need for cameras is partly the consequence of a top-down problem.
Our politicians should perhaps look in the mirror before deciding how to rein in the rest of us.
