Editorial: Security and privacy a fine balance

Predictable outrage has greeted the North Shore City Council's instruction to a Torbay couple to remove security cameras scanning the public road outside their secluded home. Why, the argument runs, should people not be able to take matters into their own hands when nothing else is working, particularly in cases such as that of Coert and Jenny Vorster, who say they called the police to their property five times last year after acts of theft and vandalism?

Probably two factors have driven the reaction to the council order. First, we have become increasingly accustomed to surveillance cameras. Whether in banks, petrol stations or in police hands in central Auckland, they have become a fact of life. What began as a traffic-control device has now become omnipresent. It has been estimated that a person walking up Queen St to the Town Hall will be filmed at least 80 times.

Secondly, we have become increasingly alarmed by breaches of our private domain, ranging from home invasion down to the scrawling of graffiti. Gated communities are a logical extension of this state of mind. But technology also provides a means of ameliorating our fear, at a time when the police are perceived widely to be failing in their job. If surveillance cameras are, as claimed, a considerable deterrent to crime in public areas and business places, why not use them as fully as possible to protect private property?

Juxtaposed to these two strands of thought, however, is a complicating sentiment. Since legislation was passed in 1993 we have become more aware of our right to privacy, and when it is being compromised. As, perhaps, when we cannot walk down a quiet neighbourhood street without being filmed covertly. It is never enough to observe that those acting lawfully have absolutely nothing to worry about.

In one respect cameras used for private security raise less concern than those in public places. There is little of the trepidation associated with state agencies - that film could be used for purposes other than that for which it was taken. At the same time, however, there is rather less likelihood of people being able to access footage of their own image. Clearly, there are valid privacy concerns, and local councils have a responsibility to assess these.

Most fundamentally, there is a world of difference between a security camera fixed on, say, a front gate or garage and one that swivels and pans on command. The latter offers the potential for unwanted intrusion into neighbouring homes and other areas unrelated to property protection. Likewise, private cameras should not be erected in a public area - on, for example, a power pole, as a Birkenhead resident is proposing - or reach out on to the street in an obtrusive manner. Discretion is the key to striking a reasonable compromise between the right to protect one's property and the privacy concerns of neighbours and passers-by.

If this byword is met, councils are likely to have few qualms. There is nothing in the North Shore City bylaws to prevent security cameras being put up by those who want to monitor their properties. Likewise, the Privacy Act makes no strong pronouncement. Councils must, therefore, consider cameras case by case. In the vast majority of instances they will not object when there is justification and when the cameras are mounted circumspectly and can be used for one legitimate purpose. The Vorsters' experience with theft and vandalism suggests they passed the first test. But the 2m outreach arms on their cameras to record from above the public footpath would always have made satisfying the second somewhat problematic.

New technology merging cellphone technology and digital cameras will soon make such paraphernalia redundant. Security cameras will be able to be hidden almost anywhere. Which, of course, will pose a whole new set of issues. As will keep being the case as we seek to balance a right to privacy against the imperatives of security.