# SCAN THIS NEWS # 7.20.2001 # # ------------------------ # # Security Cameras In Banks, # Private Business Ruled # Illegal In Canada # By Jen Ross # The Ottawa Citizen # 7-18-1 # # http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010717/5007180.html # http://www.rense.com/general12/sec.htm # # 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?"