Editing Closed-circuit television (section)

== Privacy ==
[[File:Wfm cctv van.jpg|thumb|A mobile closed-circuit TV van monitoring a street market]]{{See also|Visual privacy}}
Proponents of CCTV cameras argue that cameras are effective at deterring and solving crime, and that appropriate regulation and legal restrictions on surveillance of ''public'' spaces can provide sufficient protections so that an individual's [[right to privacy]] can reasonably be weighed against the benefits of surveillance.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kroener|first1=Inga|title=CCTV: A Technology Under the Radar?|date=2014|publisher=Ashgate Publishing |isbn= 9781472400963}}</ref> However, [[anti-surveillance activists]] have held that there is a right to privacy in public areas, that the development of CCTV in public areas, linked to databases of people's pictures and identity, presents a breach of [[civil liberties]] and the loss of [[anonymity]] in [[public place]]s.<ref>{{cite news |author=Todd Lewan |date=7 July 2007 |title=Microchips in humans spark privacy debate |url=https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2007-07-21-chips_N.htm |access-date=2012-06-07 |newspaper=[[USAToday]]}}</ref>

Furthermore, some scholars have argued that situations wherein a person's rights can be justifiably compromised are so rare as to not sufficiently warrant the frequent compromising of public privacy rights that occurs in regions with widespread CCTV surveillance. For example, in her book ''Setting the Watch: Privacy and the Ethics of CCTV Surveillance'', Beatrice von Silva-Tarouca Larsen argues that CCTV surveillance is ethically permissible only in "certain restrictively defined situations", such as when a specific location has a "comprehensively documented and significant criminal threat".<ref>{{cite book|author= Beatrice Von Silva-Tarouca Larsen|year=2011| title=Setting the watch: Privacy and the ethics of CCTV surveillance|publisher=Hart Publishing|isbn=9781849460842|page=160}}</ref>[[File:CCTV graffiti - geograph.org.uk - 977154.jpg|thumb|Anti-CCTV graffiti on the wall of the [[British Library]]]]

=== Law by countries ===
In the [[United States]], the Constitution does not explicitly include the [[right to privacy]] although the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has said several of the amendments to the Constitution implicitly grant this right.<ref>{{cite web|title=Your Right to Privacy|url=https://www.aclu.org/your-right-privacy|publisher=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> Access to video surveillance recordings may require a judge's [[writ]], which is readily available.<ref>[[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] - [https://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/7mcrm.htm Video Surveillance] Retrieved 6 August 1982</ref> However, there is little legislation and regulation specific to video surveillance.<ref>{{cite web|title=What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance|url=https://www.aclu.org/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance|publisher=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=24 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Inga Kroener|title=CCTV: A Technology Under the Radar?|date=2014|publisher=Ashgate Publishing|isbn=9781472400963|page=110}}</ref> In [[Canada]], the use of video surveillance has grown very rapidly. In [[Ontario]], both the ''municipal'' and ''provincial'' versions of the [[Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario)|Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act]] outline guidelines that control how images and information can be gathered by this method and or released.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 |url=https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241216053951/https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31 |archive-date=2024-12-16 |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=Ontario.ca |language=en}}</ref>

All countries in the [[European Union]] are signatories to the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], which protects individual rights, including the right to privacy. The [[General Data Protection Regulation]] (GDPR) required that the footage should only be retained for as long as necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. In [[Sweden]], the use of CCTV in public spaces is regulated both nationally and via GDPR. In an opinion poll commissioned by [[Lund University]] in August 2017, the general public of Sweden was asked to choose one measure that would ensure their need for privacy when subject to CCTV operation in public spaces: 43% favored regulation in the form of clear routines for managing, storing, and distributing image material generated from surveillance cameras, 39% favored regulation in the form of clear signage informing that camera surveillance in public spaces is present, 10% favored regulation in the form of having restrictive policies for issuing permits for surveillance cameras in public spaces, 6% were unsure, and 2% favored regulation in the form of having permits restricting the use of surveillance cameras during certain times.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lahtinen |first1=Markus |date=2017 |title=The perception of surveillance cameras and privacy among the general public in Sweden |url=http://lusax.se/Lahtinen_2017_OpinionPoll_DataSheet.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://lusax.se/Lahtinen_2017_OpinionPoll_DataSheet.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |publisher=LUSAX-research group, Lund University School of Economics and Management, Sweden}}</ref>[[File:SurveillanceCamera4.jpg|thumb|upright|A surveillance camera aimed at a public street ([[Kungsgatan, Stockholm|Kungsgatan]]) in Stockholm, Sweden, mounted on top of the pole]]

In an updated opinion poll commissioned by [[Lund University]] in December 2019, the general public of Sweden was asked to share their attitudes toward the use of surveillance cameras (CCTV) in public spaces. A significant majority, 88%, expressed a positive view—45% were very positive and 43% quite positive—while only 11% held negative views, and 1% were unsure. Participants were also asked whether they believed surveillance cameras in various environments violated their personal privacy. A majority rejected that such surveillance violated their privacy at national border-crossings (82%), in city centers (77%), parks and green spaces (74%), large public events (80%), and healthcare units (68%). Somewhat less rejection was observed for surveillance in residential areas, where 67% rejected the notion that it violated their privacy. When asked about the perceived use of automatic facial recognition in surveillance cameras in Sweden, 9% believed it was used quite a lot, 55% believed it was not used much, 21% believed it was not used at all, and 15% were unsure. Regarding privacy risks, 55% of respondents believed the greatest risk came from commercial documentation of individuals (e.g., data collection tracking online consumer behavior), followed by 20% who pointed to other members of the public documenting them (e.g., photography or audio recording), and 11% who saw the greatest risk in public sector data collection (e.g., by law enforcement or healthcare providers). 15% were unsure. When asked to whom they would turn to report a privacy breach related to public camera surveillance, 35% said the Swedish National Police, 6% mentioned the Swedish Data Protection Authority, and 39% did not know where to turn. <ref>{{cite web |last1=Lahtinen |first1=Markus |date=2019 |title=The Swedish general public's attitudes towards the use of surveillance cameras (CCTV) in public spaces |url=http://lusax.se/Lahtinen_2019_OpinionPoll_DataSheet.pdf |publisher=LUSAX-research group, Lund University School of Economics and Management, Sweden}}</ref>

In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Data Protection Act 1998]] imposes legal restrictions on the uses of CCTV recordings and mandates the registration of CCTV systems with the Data Protection Agency. In 2004, the successor to the Data Protection Agency, the [[Information Commissioner's Office]], clarified that this required registration of all CCTV systems with the Commissioner and prompt deletion of archived recordings. However, subsequent case law ([[Durant v Financial Services Authority|Durant vs. FSA]]) limited the scope of the protection provided by this law, and not all CCTV systems are currently regulated.<ref>{{cite web|title=Memorandum by A A Adams, BSc, MSc, PhD, LLM, MBCS, CITP School of Systems Engineering|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/18we03.htm|website=UK Parliament Constitution Committee - Written Evidence. Surveillance: Citizens and the State|date=January 2007}}</ref>

A 2007 report by the UK Information Commissioner's Office highlighted the need for the public to be made more aware of the growing use of surveillance and the potential impact on civil liberties.<ref>{{cite news|title=Privacy watchdog wants curbs on surveillance|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550218/Privacy-watchdog-wants-curbs-on-surveillance.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550218/Privacy-watchdog-wants-curbs-on-surveillance.html |archive-date=11 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=1 May 2007}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=13 April 2012 |title=CCTV, computers and the 'climate of fear' |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cctv-computers-and-the-climate-of-fear-7204625.html |newspaper=Evening Standard}}</ref> In the same year, a campaign group claimed that the majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are operated illegally or are in breach of privacy guidelines.<ref name="Telegraph2007">{{cite news |last=Hall |first=Tim |date=31 May 2007 |title=Majority of UK's CCTV cameras 'are illegal' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/31/ncamera131.xml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070602114448/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F05%2F31%2Fncamera131.xml |archive-date=2 June 2007 |access-date=18 July 2021 |newspaper=The Telegraph}}</ref> In response, the Information Commissioner's Office rebutted the claim and added that any reported abuses of the Data Protection Act are swiftly investigated.<ref name="Telegraph2007" /> Even if there are some concerns arising from the use of CCTV such as involving privacy,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Siddique |first=Haroon |date=2014-12-11 |title=Home surveillance CCTV images may breach data protection laws, ECJ rules |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/11/home-surveillance-cctv-images-may-breach-data-protection-rules-european-court-judgment-says |access-date=2024-12-19 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> more commercial establishments are still installing CCTV systems in the UK. In 2012, the UK government enacted the [[Protection of Freedoms Act 2012|Protection of Freedoms Act]] which includes several provisions related to controlling the storage and use of information about individuals. Under this Act, the [[Home Office]] published a code of practice in 2013 for the use of surveillance cameras by government and local authorities. The code wrote that "surveillance by consent should be regarded as analogous to [[policing by consent]]."<ref>{{cite web|title=Surveillance Camera Code of Practice|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/204775/Surveillance_Camera_Code_of_Practice_WEB.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/204775/Surveillance_Camera_Code_of_Practice_WEB.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|publisher=UK Government Home Office|access-date=1 December 2013|page=5|date=June 2013}}</ref>

In the [[Philippines]], the main laws governing CCTV usage are [[Data Privacy Act of 2012]] and the [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012]]. The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173) is the primary law that governs data privacy in the Philippines. The Act mandates that the privacy of individuals must be respected and protected. The law applies to CCTV cameras as they collect and process personal data. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) includes provisions that apply to CCTV usage. Under the Act, the unauthorized access to, interception of, or interference with data is a criminal offense. This means that unauthorized access to CCTV footage could potentially be considered a cybercrime.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Manalo |first1=Dennes M. |last2=Mapoy |first2=Kim Alvin |last3=Villano |first3=Kim Joem K. |last4=Reyes |first4=Kenneth Angelo D. |last5=Bautista |first5=Merwina Lou A. |date=2015 |title=Status of Closed Circuit Television Camera Usage in Batangas City: Basis for Enhancement |url=https://research.lpubatangas.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CRIM-2015-003-Status-of-Closed-Circuit-Television-Camera-Usage-in-Batangas-City.pdf |journal=College of Criminology Research Journal |volume=6 |via=Pubatangas}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Republic Act 10173 - Data Privacy Act of 2012 |url=https://www.privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/ |website=National Privacy Commission}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Republic Act No. 10175 {{!}} GOVPH |url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines |date=12 September 2012 |language=en-US |archive-date=9 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209023224/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>