THE FIRETIDE BLOG

Privacy laws, common sense must be considered for wireless surveillance

Mar 03, 2015

2015-03-03 Public Safety Cameras.jpgStrategic camera placement has helped to keep people and organizations protected for years. But for every success story or voice of support, there are those that believe things like wireless surveillance systems are an inherent invasion of privacy. This has created some significant debate about the use of video cameras in the name of both public and private security.

“Combined with other government surveillance technologies (such as seizure of phone, email, and credit card records, RFID chips and GPS devices), cameras can turn our lives into open books for government scrutiny,” stated the ACLU of Illinois in a report on Chicago’s surveillance cameras.

There are arguments for both sides here, but the thing of it is that wireless security doesn’t have to be totalitarian or invasive in order to be implemented. So long as local, state and federal regulations – not to mention common sense – are followed, it’s possible to have a line of defense in play that will help to solve crimes without encroaching on the rights of those that abide by the law.

Camera placement is essential
While it makes sense to cover as many areas as possible, there are some limits that have to be in place when it comes to wireless surveillance – and some of them are pretty common sense in nature. For one thing, sensitive areas like bathrooms are completely off the table, with the reasons here being obvious. On private property that’s in use by businesses, it might be wise to keep cameras out of places like employee breakrooms.

In terms of public safety, cameras should generally only be trained on areas that are not private. Streets, squares and other locations that are out in the open are where focus should be. As long as the placement of these cameras – hidden or visible – is legal, there is nothing to worry about. This will not only prevent legal complications, but will allow those people out in public to feel more comfortable with the idea of the cameras.

Data storage must also be considered
Not only do the recording devices themselves have to be taken into account, but where the footage ends up must also be up to code, so to speak.

“Britain, along with Israel, are the most surveilled countries in the world,” wrote Easy Reader News contributor Bob Pinzler. “The reasons for installing those systems can be easily justified. However, in the U.S., as the technology to gather data and share it becomes easier and easier, it is probably time to determine the relative merits. Both sides have legitimate cases to make.”

Much of this has to do with the storage of footage. Pinzler points out that warrants are generally needed to track someone in a manner “that is admissable in court.” Failing to take this kind of thing into consideration can create significant legal complications.

Playing by the rules 
Security cameras are generally put into place to make sure people are abiding by the law. To break the law in the interest of upholding it does no favors for anyone. It’s important to make sure that things like camera placement and data storage are optimized not only for results, but for compliance. Common sense plays a big role here, as well.

For those organizations or entities that are ready for a wireless security network to be implemented, turn to Firetide first. When a wireless mesh network is the only solution, Firetide can help you get everything up and running in a way that is best suited for needs and regulations alike.


Tags:
Category: Public Safety

Archive