CCTV cameras have dissolved into the background of public places, and that is a problem

IN 2021, the then Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal proudly stated that Delhi had been ranked number one in the world in terms of the number of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras per square kilometre.Delhi has sustained its position of being one of the most surveilled cities in the world with 1,490.19 cameras per square mile. The state’s rationale behind expanding the deployment of CCTV cameras is that this helps ensure public safety by deterring criminal activities and aids in ensuring public safety, and the maintenance of law and order.Today, CCTV cameras have become subtly integrated into our daily lives. However, this increased surveillance has, at times, taken nefarious forms; suppressing dissent, targeting specific communities, etc. Moreover, concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency, non-accountability of authorities in data collection and privacy violations. State surveillance versus privacy: The implications of the DPDP ActWith CCTV cameras at every other corner in many cities, there is a resultant increase in social control by the State, which has given the State an implicit authority to act as an Orwellian surveillance state.Public endorsement of CCTV cameras has cemented the State’s hold on the regulation of CCTV cameras. However, there has been an age-long demand for legislation to check the State’s surveillance power.In the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted that the government should carefully balance citizen’s right to privacy and the State’s legitimate interest..Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services Rules, 2024: An exception that threatens to become the rule.The court also expressed concerns over the unchecked authority of the executive to determine what constitutes the State’s legitimate interest.In response to growing privacy concerns, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) came into force, ostensibly to streamline data protection laws and put a check on the State’s control over citizens’ personal data.However, the Act has been criticised for granting the State unfettered powers under the masquerade of exemptions in the garb of national interest. Specifically, Section 7 of the Act allows the State to access personal data of citizens for purposes such as preserving State sovereignty, integrity and security.While CCTV cameras are installed to deter crimes, the current surveillance regime with States having unfettered discretion over the collection, use and storage of citizens’ personal data, poses a serious threat to citizens’ right to privacy.Predictive policing: Reinforcing biases through CCTV surveillanceWith the ongoing revolution in artificial intelligence (AI), the usage of predictive policing techniques by legal enforcement agencies has increased in recent years.Predictive policing uses AI algorithms, predictive analytics and a massive amount of collected data to map recurring patterns in criminal behaviour and to predict crimes.A recent Deloitte study found that using smart technologies such as AI in policing models could help reduce crime by 30–40 percent. However, the efficiency of predictive policing on the ground could be more contentious.This model legitimises the police’s biases by hiding them behind the façade of algorithms. According to a recent report, it has been found that the government is more likely to install CCTV cameras in slums or poor localities, compared to higher-income localities, which suggests that these areas are more policed, thus more crimes would be detected from these places. This data is then fed into predictive policing models, disproportionately targeting poor people, resulting in their over-incarceration.Furthermore, there have also been reports suggesting that the Delhi police’s use of facial recognition technology (FRT) disproportionately targets Muslims. Despite the limited awareness regarding CCTV camera surveillance among the general population, support for any form of surveillance decreases with a decline in socio-economic status..Why is the Rajasthan government using internet shutdowns to curb malpractices in public examinations?.Data also suggests that 25 percent of Muslims agree that CCTV cameras in public places entail a risk of illegal mass surveillance. This suggests that the data used by predictive policing often reflects patterns of over-policing of marginalised communities driven by the biased deployment of CCTV cameras, rather than providing a clear assessment of who is more likely to commit crimes.Lack of awareness surrounding CCTV camera surveillance and its implicationsToday, when targeted surveillance by the State is getting more sophisticated, the spotlight is on citizens’ right to privacy and its protection. However, the right to be aware of such surveillance often goes unnoticed.The technology is stealthily dissolved in our surroundings, and so is the surveillance by the State. Allegations regarding the use of Pegasus spyware by the Indian government to target and spy on Opposition leaders, rights activists and dissidents have raised serious concerns about State surveillance.India is home to the three most-surveilled cities globally— Hyderabad, Indore and Delhi. In some cities, police can even access real-time data from residential neighbourhoods. For instance, in Bhopal and Surat, police can access such data.Despite this, there is widespread public ignorance regarding the State’s surveillance mechanisms. Findings of Status of Policing in India Report,2023 emphasise the citizenry’s lack of awareness about the State’s surveillance mechanism. Two out of three people are unaware of the Pegasus spyware issue.Moreover, many citizens misunderstand who has access to CCTV camera footage, with 40 percent believing that only those who install the cameras can view it.There have also been cases of data misuse, such as in 2014, when Delhi Metro CCTV camera footage leaked on YouTube and on some questionable sites. While surveillance cameras are installed to deter crimes, they should not turn themselves into tools for plain harassment of citizens. To address these issues, State authorities must formulate legislation to prevent the misuse of CCTV data and ensure its strict encryption..What is the X appeal against the blocking Order by Karnataka HC Order all about?.The data collected through surveillance technologies, including facial recognition technology (FRT), CCTV cameras and drones, have raised concerns about their potential to curtail citizens’ rights to speech and expression.During the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the farm laws, and the Agnipath scheme, as well as during the COVID-19 lockdown, these technologies were used to track and identify dissenters, leading to detentions.Given the inherent bias in the policing model, surveillance technologies have disproportionately targeted specific communities, exacerbating the existing social inequalities.The report, Uncertain Justice: A Citizen’s Committee, authored by retired judges and civil servants highlighted several cases where the police submitted CCTV camera footage in court as evidence but later failed to substantiate the charges against the accused.This raises concerns about the reliability of CCTV camera footage and its potential misuse for political purposes. As State surveillance becomes increasingly pervasive, the lack of public awareness and oversight about data collection through CCTV cameras installed in their neighbourhood remains a critical concern.The way forwardIn his book Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarisation of Urban Space, Michael Davis discusses the use of CCTV in public spaces as militarisation and destruction of public space that undermines the very essence of public life. With no concrete legislation to keep a check on State’s surveillance of citizens, today our neighbourhoods have been militarised with the clinical gaze of State officials at every second.This has not only raised concerns over restricting the full participation of citizens in their daily lives on urban streets but has also jeopardised their privacy.The DPDP Act has not fulfilled its purpose of protecting the citizens’ privacy but has acted as a paper tiger by granting unfettered discretion to the State to access citizens’ data for purposes deemed “legitimate”..Faster civil trials in India through technology reforms and procedural innovations.The lack of awareness among citizens about CCTV cameras around the corner is also a rising concern which has resulted in the installation of CCTV cameras in areas of marginalised communities and increasing targeted surveillance.With the basic rights of all citizens at stake, the judiciary should intervene to check on the State’s power of arbitrary surveillance of citizens. The threshold of legality and proportionality as formulated in the 2017 judgment should serve as a strict standard for the State to collect the personal data of citizens.Moreover, the finding of the report, Uncertain Justice: A Citizen’s Committee should be taken into account by the judiciary, to prevent the arbitrary use of CCTV camera footage for convictions without any concrete evidence.There should be a clear articulation of rules on CCTV camera surveillance to avoid targeted surveillance by police, and awareness should be spread within the citizenry on who is controlling their data and on the laws for the protection of their personal data.