In this blog post, we take a balanced look at the positive effects of the spread of surveillance systems, including CCTV, as well as the issues of privacy infringement and abuse of power that have been raised.
“Illegal dumping is being filmed. If caught, you will be fined up to $1,000.”
People passing by a garbage collection facility are startled by a warning voice accompanied by bright lights. An automated warning system is activated when someone approaches within 15 meters of the designated area. This is how so-called “talking CCTV” prevents illegal dumping. The actions of some unscrupulous people who secretly dumped trash in the middle of the night have been eliminated thanks to these 24-hour surveillance cameras. As a result, many local governments that had been plagued by illegal dumping are gradually increasing the number of “talking CCTV” cameras.
As in the above case, surveillance systems such as CCTV can be found everywhere in our lives, and their number is gradually increasing. Devices that record people’s every move are installed on roads, inside buildings, and even in many cars. According to government statistics, as of the end of 2013, there were approximately 560,000 public CCTV cameras. In addition, including those installed voluntarily by private businesses and building owners, the number of CCTV cameras nationwide is estimated to reach 5 million.
Surveillance systems are highly effective in preventing crime and illegal acts, and provide valuable information for criminal investigations and dispute resolution. For example, CCTV footage was crucial in the investigation of a child abuse case at a daycare center in Incheon that shocked South Korea in 2015. However, the increase in the use of surveillance systems cannot be welcomed without reservation. This is because it is directly related to our privacy. As blind spots in CCTV coverage decrease, we are no longer free from surveillance wherever we go. According to the government statistics mentioned earlier, college students are exposed to CCTV an average of 228 times a day, and office workers 130 times. Except for extremely private spaces such as our homes and bathrooms, our images are constantly being recorded by someone.
However, most people do not raise any major objections to this reality. Rather, they believe that a certain degree of surveillance is inevitable for public safety and order. This is certainly a valid point. However, the problem is that we are quickly being placed under a surveillance network without sufficient discussion about who is responsible for the surveillance or the extent of it. In most cases, we are not asked for our consent in this process. According to the “Privacy Guidelines” published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1980, this is a clear violation of privacy as it involves the collection and accumulation of personal information without the consent of the data subject.
Some argue that this is not a problem because public safety and order take precedence over privacy. However, this is a very dangerous way of thinking. Surveillance has a power that cannot be ignored. Those who conduct surveillance can unilaterally obtain information about those being monitored. This information includes everything about the subject, such as their appearance, behavior, and environment. Using this information, the surveillance entity can easily gain an advantage over the subject. This is because the surveillance entity knows the subject’s information and can act accordingly, but the subject does not. The reason we accept surveillance systems despite this unequal relationship can be described as a kind of contract for public safety. The subject of surveillance unilaterally provides their information, but the surveillance entity promises to use that information only for public safety and security, thereby establishing a contract. However, the problem is that there is a risk that the surveillance entity will misuse that information. Let’s take a look at the risks of a society where indiscriminate surveillance is rampant, depending on the surveillance entity, such as the state, corporations, and individuals.
First, let us consider the case where the surveillance entity is a public authority. In 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed the existence of PRISM, a secret program of the US National Security Agency (NSA) to collect personal information, the US was in an uproar. In South Korea, many citizens joined a filibuster to prevent the passage of an anti-terrorism law. People feared that such surveillance systems would become a means of irresistible power and control. This is reminiscent of the “telescreens” that appear in George Orwell’s novel “1984.” In the novel, Big Brother monitors and controls people 24 hours a day through telescreens. All speech and actions are censored at any time and anywhere, and individual thoughts are completely ignored. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is aware of this problem and secretly dreams of overthrowing the regime with his girlfriend Julia, but he is eventually caught in the inescapable surveillance network, tortured, and forced to undergo thought control. Of course, this is a novel based on extreme totalitarianism, and the possibility of such a world actually coming into being seems slim. However, the powerful force of the “telescreen” in the novel is enough to alert us to our attitude of tolerating surveillance without critical awareness. We must keep in mind that every time we give up our right not to be monitored in the name of public safety and security, those who monitor us can exert tremendous influence.
In companies and other private workplaces, we can see a more fundamental problem. That is the violation of the “right not to be monitored.” In the case of the Incheon daycare center mentioned above, due to public pressure, a revision to the Infant Care Act was passed, requiring daycare centers to install CCTV cameras and store the footage for at least 60 days. This happened only about four months after the CCTV footage was released. Many people breathed a sigh of relief, saying that they could finally leave their children at daycare with peace of mind. However, we must also consider the position of the childcare workers at the daycare center. From the customer’s perspective, they are actively exposed to the surveillance system because they can choose where to receive services. In other words, if they are informed of the surveillance system in advance, they can agree or refuse to consent to it. However, the position of childcare workers and other employees is different. Employees have no choice but to be exposed to surveillance systems if their employers so desire. Such high-handed surveillance is a violation of individual human rights. However, under the guise of efficiency, such human rights violations are increasing day by day. According to the National Human Rights Commission, the number of “CCTV-related complaints and consultations” in the workplace increased more than threefold from 301 cases in 2005 to 1,131 cases in 2010. This trend has continued, and in 2023, the number of related complaints and consultations exceeded 1,500. Specific cases range from eavesdropping on employee conversations through CCTV to monitoring worker attendance. Those who sought counseling complained to the Human Rights Commission that they felt “under surveillance.” If CCTV is unconditionally accepted in the name of safety and efficiency, the right of workers not to be monitored will inevitably be trampled upon.
Next, let’s look at cases where the monitoring entity is an individual who has not been granted public authority. This includes private businesses such as convenience stores and restaurants. Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that “all people shall have their privacy and freedom of communication secured.” Surveillance systems by public authorities are systematically installed and managed in accordance with legal procedures under the spirit of the Constitution. However, the management of surveillance systems installed by individuals is lax. According to Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Personal Information Protection Act, when installing and operating CCTV, 1. the purpose and location of installation, 2. the scope and time of filming, and 3. the name and contact information of the person responsible for management must be posted on an information board. However, many businesses do not install information boards because they believe it spoils the atmosphere, or even if they do, they only put up a small sign saying “CCTV recording in progress” in the corner of the business premises. Under current law, if a violation is detected, a corrective recommendation is issued, and if corrective measures are not taken, a fine is imposed on the business. However, it is difficult to crack down on numerous individual businesses one by one, so the law is ineffective. As a result, most customers are not even aware of the existence of CCTV cameras. The problem does not end there. The data collected in this way can be used at the discretion of the surveillance entity. Even if the existence of CCTV cameras is disclosed in advance and tacit consent to filming is obtained, separate consent is required for how the data will be used. However, the management of surveillance systems at private businesses is currently entirely in the hands of individuals. This means that data obtained from surveillance systems, such as recorded images, can be misused for criminal purposes at any time. For example, crimes such as capturing images of people entering a lingerie store and posting them on the internet can occur at any time if the individual managing the CCTV has malicious intent.
The logic behind the use of automated surveillance systems, including CCTV, is based on the fear of unexpected accidents and crimes. It is only natural for humans to have such fears and want to prepare for them. However, the use of surveillance systems as a solution must be approached with great caution. Of course, surveillance systems are effective in crime prevention and as evidence in disputes. Furthermore, it is difficult to find an alternative that is as economical and efficient as surveillance systems. However, as we have seen, surveillance is a double-edged sword. If we use it indiscriminately without fully considering its impact, we will not only be unable to guarantee our basic human rights to privacy, but we may also become targets of crime without even realizing it.
Therefore, we must find a consensus on surveillance systems through concrete discussions as soon as possible. We need to agree on the extent to which surveillance systems should be allowed, who should manage the data obtained from them, and how long the data should be stored. Without such an agreement, it is impossible to trust surveillance systems. As with all powerful forces, surveillance itself becomes a threat without thorough control. Ultimately, the key to the problem lies, paradoxically, in how well we can monitor the surveillance system.
As a first step toward this, we must move away from a passive attitude of unconditionally accepting surveillance systems for the sake of public safety and security. This does not mean giving up public safety and security. However, we must remember that blindly pursuing public safety and security and uncritically accepting surveillance systems can actually threaten our privacy and personal safety.
In addition, companies should stop installing CCTV cameras for attendance management, and if CCTV cameras are necessary for safety reasons, internal rules should be established to ensure that they are not used for any purpose other than the specified purpose. To this end, there must be prior agreement between labor unions and companies on surveillance systems. Labor unions also need to continuously monitor whether the agreed-upon measures regarding surveillance systems are being properly implemented.
Finally, the state must establish legal mechanisms to prevent the surveillance of citizens without cause, unless there is a direct threat to public safety, such as terrorism. In addition, before enacting laws, the state must guarantee the public’s right to know through public hearings and other means, and improve laws to reflect the voices of the people.
We all have the “right not to be monitored.” Even if it is for a good cause, it is never right to trample on this right. We must be vigilant and angry about this. Only when we have this critical awareness can we create a trustworthy surveillance system.
