Security cameras ruled illegal

Big Brother may want to watch you, but you are legally entitled to flick the off switch.

That is the implication of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPED), which makes it illegal for any private company to collect personal information on an individual without their expressed consent or a warrant.

"I could walk into a bank and ask them to turn off the camera because it violates my privacy rights," said Peter Mantas, a technology lawyer in Ottawa for law firm Heenan and Blaikie.

"That would certainly put them in a huff ... (but) it would be against the law for the bank manager to decline."

People can also request that a security camera in a convenience store be turned off while they are in the premises.

Last month, in the first decision under the act, which came into effect Jan. 1, federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski told a Yellowknife security company the installation of street surveillance cameras is unlawful.

"People have the right to go about their business without feeling that their actions are being systematically observed and monitored," said Mr. Radwanski.

The privacy commissioner has since launched an investigation into the issue of video surveillance monitoring and will not comment on particular cases until that investigation is completed.

Mr. Mantas says the act has broader implications for workplace surveillance of employees and for the use of video for consumer profiling than have yet to be realized.

Moreover, although the act would allow a security video to be handed over to police if it showed evidence of criminal activity, in theory, if you can shut off the bank camera and then commit a robbery, there would be no proof to hand over.

"It means a lot because it's going to compromise investigations," said Sgt. Loretta Ronchin, of the Greater Sudbury Police Service. "I'm going to be really interested to see what happens."

Sudbury became the first Canadian city to use closed-circuit television monitoring of public streets in 1996. Sgt. Ronchin says in the five years since their "lion's eye in the sky" was introduced, there has been a 38-per-cent reduction in robberies and assaults. They have five cameras that feed into the Sudbury police station.

London, Ont., Winnipeg and Toronto also opted for such systems and various cities, including Calgary and Kelowna, are currently looking to install cameras in public areas.

But Mr. Mantas suspects the PIPED Act may not be applied to street monitoring done directly by police because the act covers private organizations. Government bodies are covered by their own laws, which Mr. Mantas characterized as much more relaxed.

"I think it's quite troubling," said Mr. Mantas, of the public-private divide. "Are we to see a situation where people's privacy is being enhanced in the private sector, but it is being less protected at the level of the state?"

Mr. Radwanski ruled that both live and recorded video pictures qualify as "personal information" under the act. However, he did acknowledge there may be instances where it is appropriate for public places to be monitored for public safety reasons, but that such surveillance must be limited to instances where there is a demonstrated need.

"I would think that the invasion of privacy is dwarfed by the crime prevention that video provides," said Steve Kelly, spokesman for the Canadian Alarm and Security Association. "If you don't have anything to hide, why should you be upset with someone taking your picture?"