To the editor,
In response to Cheryl Watts’ letter (“Don’t let fear rule transit,” Aug 7), which clearly puts her right to privacy over the safety of public transit employees, I offer this: When you leave the safety and privacy of your home to go onto a publictransit system, your quest for being anonymous and experiencing privacy becomes irrelevant. In any public place where an exhange of services is being sought, such as any financial institution, government office or transit system—where studies have shown employees are at high risk for assault, abuse or worse—the need for employee and public safety trumps privacy. I wonder if Ms. Watts complains every time she enters parkades in this city which employ electronic surveillance to catch car thieves or other undesirables, or takes money out from a banking machine. In both cases, she would be the patron, not an employee. She can choose to park somewhere else or not use a bank machine. Transit employees are performing their duties and deserve to be protected in spite of people who put their own privacy above safety. Provincial legislation (the Workplace Safety Act) which took effect on April 1, 2008, demands that employers take whatever measures are neccessary to protect their workers.
If you’re under the illusion that security cameras are there to spy on you, stay home and never step into another public space again.
By — Joanne Bernard
Related Stories
This article appears in Aug 14-20, 2008.
Joanne, please follow the thread attached to that letter. I’m not only concerned with my privacy, but the privacy of ordinary citizens and the ways in which video surveillance can be used for purposes other than originally intended. Which does happen, contrary to popular belief.In response to your letter, which clearly misses my point, I offer you this: there are other means of providing safety and security services to both passengers and employees that do not require public video surveillance. While I understand your position, my point is that these other options should be discussed and explored in a public forum before we jump onto the Big Brother bandwagon. If you do not think that Metro Transit has a responsibility to openly disclose how they plan to manage the collection, monitoring, storage and destruction of their video surveillance footage then I think you need your head read. I’m not really afraid of cameras, nor am I afraid of public spaces. As a white, middle-class woman, I am not likely to be spied on, (Unless I am Rita McNeil…. the radical singing feminist dubbed national security threat of the 70s). Like you, I am not likely to become the target of racial profiling or the subject of a national security investigation. But ‘other undesirables’ (what-ever you intended that to mean), are not often granted the same luxury. If you fell into the ‘other’ category, you might have a different view on this issue. Imagine what it is already like for veiled Muslim women and their families to ride the bus in the post-9-11 context? And despite what you may think, there are both federal and provincial laws in place which do protect a certain right to privacy in public spaces… especially when those public spaces are managed by government entities. Do your research Ms. Bernard. I did.By the way, “whatever measures are nescessary” is very subjective wording and does not nescessarily default to public video surveillance measures. If you are under the illusion that security cameras are going to protect you from all evils, or that video surveillance is never used for unintended purposes, you are wrong. Cars still get broken into, people still get robbed at bank machines, bus drivers will still get assulted (even after the cameras get installed), and public video surveillance information will continue to be misused (no matter what the intended purpose). Just because you choose not to question the ethical implications of such technologies because they won’t negatively affect you, doesn’t that mean that others shouldn’t be concerned. Last time I checked, being critical and informed was not something to be ashamed of, however one could argue that your blind faith in such technologies and ignorance of privacy laws are. P.S. If I had a car, I wouldn’t be concerned about cameras on the bus.