CCTV Cameras And Making Of Surveillance Societies

The evolution of CCTV cameras

The development of the CCTV camera is attributed to Russian scientist Leon Theremin and German engineer Walter Bruch. Theremin, in 1927, developed the first CCTV made out of a camera and a shortwave radio, which was used to monitor visitors at the Kremlin in Moscow. Later, during the Second World War, in 1942, Walter Bruch designed a system that was used by the German military to monitor rocket launches from a safe distance. But just like the Theremin system, this one couldn't store data, so someone had to keep an eye on the live stream. Until 1949, CCTVs were not commercially available in the market. However, the widespread use and commercialization of CCTV systems expanded over time with contributions from various inventors and companies, including the development of video surveillance technologies in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Its earliest use was as an aid for policing and checking against criminal activities; however, slowly and steadily, the use of these cameras was no longer limited to the police but extended to a general need for security in public spaces, employed even by private entities like homes, shops, and offices.

CCTV: A banal good?

The use of CCTV cameras has witnessed exponential growth across the world, including India. This is associated with the perception of this surveillance technology as a tool for crime prevention and post-crime investigation. In August 2022, the Lokniti Centre for the Study of Developing Societies conducted a study in 12 states of India, and more than a third-fourth of the participants endorsed installing CCTV cameras at the entrances to their homes, and 72 percent of respondents believed that CCTV cameras help reduce crime. This increased perception of CCTV cameras as a mechanical device for ensuring public security as a result of the increased 'culture of suspicion' has led to its usage as a banal good that has become such a routine part of everyday life that it gets taken for granted or fails to be noticed or subjected to any form of contestation. In the garb of banality, CCTV has started to govern us while escaping the debate of how we might regulate it in the best possible way. As an implication, the mere installation of CCTV cameras by the state apparatus garners support in public discourse as being in the public interest without any evaluation of the real benefits and associated risks. In effect, recent times have seen the mushrooming of CCTV surveillance, not just by the state but also by private individuals and bodies. A recent study has shown that orders under Section 144 CrPC were utilized in Delhi to coerce private actors to install CCTV cameras for surveillance and hand over the footage to police when required or demanded. Thus, the deployment of CCTVs by private actors at the behest of the state to carry out warrantless mass surveillance got normalized under the “legitimate aim” of public safety, in complete ignorance of the violation of a bundle of rights. So, on the one hand, banality ensures that we fail to notice them; on the other hand, material culture ensures that the technological artifact becomes more powerful and determinant for us. Thus, the widespread use of CCTV is not just a technological phenomenon but also a cultural one, illustrating how societies interact with and adapt to the material world around them.

Competing public values

The proponents of CCTV cameras cite the public benefits such as enhanced security, crime deterrence, and assistance in investigations that the technology offers. On the other hand, there are concerns about it being used as a tool of mass surveillance, invading the private lives of people constantly. Vulnerable populations, such as minors, women, the elderly, economically weaker classes, and various minority groups, face complex privacy risks because technologies are not designed to address their privacy concerns. In practice, such surveillance practices only contribute to their existing vulnerability. In addition to privacy implications, CCTV has the potential to affect freedom of expression and association as well. The unregulated use of CCTV surveillance in public spaces acts as a tool to curb collective action and political dissent by identifying and targeting dissenters. This becomes disproportionately problematic in the context of the snatching away of the right of protest of those marginalized communities already disadvantaged by state measures, thus leaving an indelible mark on their right to life and liberty. For instance, during the anti-CAA protest, the Delhi police made use of CCTV cameras and other surveillance technologies to identify protestors belonging to a community.

However, the data reflects that that a high rate of surveillance does not have a necessary correlation with reduced crime rates. Indian cities like Delhi, Indore, Hyderabad, and Chennai with the highest number of surveillance cameras also have a higher rank on the crime indexes. This data doesn't apply to India alone, as several other studies report that there is no association between the increased number of cameras and crime rates across the world. So then, if not for crime deterrence, what explains the continuous expansion of CCTV coverage? Perceived as a technology for public safety, such surveillance mechanisms are increasingly employed by the state to monitor its citizens and track their actions. However, such monitoring is impacted by the politics of the day. For instance, in 2010, surveillance cameras were installed specifically in two predominantly Muslim suburbs of Birmingham as part of a counter-terrorism measure, which was three times more than that employed to monitor the entire city centre. Similarly, in the United States of America, it was shown that the deployment of CCTV cameras was on the higher side in non-whites dominated locality

. Even if it is utilized as a tool for public safety or crime prevention, it is very likely that its employment is political in the sense that it contains certain political properties or arrangements of power, authority, and privileges. This stands true not only in the scope of its coverage but also in the utilization of information arising from it. For instance, Mohammad Khadeer, a daily wage worker from Hyderabad, was arrested on the pretext of committing theft because his face resembled the suspect based on CCTV footage; due to torture, he died. Later on, it was found that he was innocent. Thus, the seemingly neutral technology puts those already at the edge in peril.

Legal landscape

One of the reasons behind the unabated growth of CCTV cameras in India is the absence of specific laws to regulate them. According to the 2023 Status of Policing in India Report, the trade-off between security and privacy is a dilemma that people face with the advent of new technology while the law is still catching up. No specific national-level legislation governs the use of CCTV cameras in India. The governance of CCTV cameras in India comes under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the capturing, publishing, or transmitting of an image by a camera of a person's private parts, without consent has been made punishable. However, no conviction has been reported under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In addition to this, certain other provisions of the Act can become applicable to CCTV cameras. However, there are no specific laws in India regulating residential CCTV cameras, and there are no clear criteria for collecting, maintaining, and exhibiting CCTV camera footage as evidence. Also, there is no specific prohibition on mass surveillance.

If there are no specific laws to regulate CCTV cameras, then the question arises: who regulates them? Who has the authority to determine when CCTV is placed, whether it is in the public interest or pure harassment? What happens when the CCTV is installed on private property with malafide intention? Who is observing you behind the camera? Is there any difference between privately owned cameras and cameras owned by the state? Who is authorized to own the CCTV? Is CCTV playing the big brother role for the state and giant corporations? Currently, the law in India is entirely silent about all these issues. At the moment, holistic legislation is a must to regulate CCTV use in India. Apart from addressing the privacy concern, the legislation should define the permissible use of CCTV and establish data security standards. Further, the law should contain clear guidelines for the retention period and incorporate accountability and redressal mechanisms. A collaborative approach involving the opinions of the public, legal experts, and technical experts is essential to ensuring a well-rounded and effective regulatory mechanism.

The CCTV camera as a technological artifact is not without its benefits; however, it must be acknowledged that its increasing use has wide-reaching implications for society. The lack of appropriate regulations has greater implications in terms of amplifying the power of the state, which in turn denigrates the rights of the public and the individual. Given that the state is not only the regulator of the policies but is also a key employer of CCTV cameras, this calls for a greater role for other relevant stakeholders, especially the public. The role of the public in regulating digital surveillance is often overlooked, but in an era where public security, as well as law and order, are trumping all other rights, an adequate representation of the various sections of the population becomes vital in shaping regulation that strikes a delicate balance between legitimate aim of security and the rights of individuals.

Authors are PhD candidates at CSLG, JNU. 

Views Are Personal.