Privacy Commissioner Re Surveillance Cameras Argument Sample Paper
DETAILS
Unit 7 Discussion
1. Is the argument made by the Privacy Commissioner re surveillance cameras in 2001 still valid today? See: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-federal-institutions/2001-02/02_05_b_011004/
See this also: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-law-enforcement/vs_060301/
UNIT 7 DISCUSSION
Introduction
In response to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columba’s complaint about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) surveillance video installation in Kelowna, Canada, a letter of investigation on the lawfulness and conformity to the Canadian privacy right was drafted in 2001 (Alan 2015). In 2006, the guidelines, which are still in use today, on the use of surveillance videos, were put in place. The following discussion indicates how the letter’s provisions are still applied in Canada at the moment. Privacy Commissioner Re Surveillance Cameras Argument Sample Paper
The Arguments Made by the Privacy Commissioner Re Surveillance Cameras in 2001 are Still Valid Today
To some extent, the arguments are valid in the following ways:
The letter argues that with respect to the privacy act, it is only justifiable to use video surveillance of the general public in the absence of “other less privacy-invasive means”. Similarly, the adopted guidelines in 2006 states that the “Video surveillance should be viewed as an exceptional step, only to be taken in the absence of a less privacy-invasive alternative” (Alan 2015).
At the same time the 2006 guideline to the use of surveillance cameras states that people’s rights towards accessibility to their personal information should be respected, that is, they have “right of access” (Alan, 2015). On the other hand, the letter had stipulated that if the police are using the recorded information to undertake an investigation towards an individual recorded in the camera, the members involved should not be denied their right to access such information (Brown, 2008).
ORDER A PLAGIARISM -FREE PAPER NOW
Finally, the author of the letter recognizes the application of the law such as the privacy act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in the use of surveillance cameras (Alan, 2015). This is the same case as far as the guidelines are concerned whereby it is stated that the video surveillance must be in accordance to the applicable law (Brown, 2008). Privacy Commissioner Re Surveillance Cameras Argument Sample Paper
Conclusion
The guidelines are in support of the factors stipulated in the letter. As a result, and since these guidelines are still in use in today’s Canada, I tend to think that the arguments made in the letter are valid.
References
Alan W., (2015) Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance. Information and privacy commissioner of Ontario Privacy and Freedom
Brown, J. (2008). PAN, TILT, AND ZOOM: REGULATING THE USE OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PUBLIC PLACES. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23(1),
Report No. 2 of 2012/13 to the Queensland Legislative Assembly. Camera Surveillance and Privacy. Review of Camera Surveillance Use by Queensland Government. Agencies and Compliance with the Privacy Principles in the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). Report Office of the Information; Commissioner of Queensland. Privacy Commissioner Re Surveillance Cameras Argument Sample Paper
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-federal- institutions/2001-02/02_05_b_011004/
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-law-enforcement/vs_060301/
Privacy Commissioner Re Surveillance Cameras Argument Sample Paper