A report to address City Council regarding the Staff Report PLPD04-085 on the DBIA proposal for Security Cameras in the Downtown Area.

That City Council endorses parts "a" and "b" of the recommendation in Report PLPD04-085 to establish a committee to investigate alternatives to Closed Circuit Security Cameras in the downtown;

That City Council rejects part "c" of the recommendation in Report PLPD04-085 as it is not in the financial, practical, or ethical interests of the City to proceed further with plans for closed circuit security cameras in the downtown core.

It is not in the best interests of the City of Peterborough to proceed with plans to install Closed Circuit Security Cameras (CCSC) in the downtown core. Citizens and public officials must balance the benefits of video surveillance systems against all negative factors, including an individual's right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted intrusion into his or her life. Given the overwhelming evidence that cameras are extremely expensive, prone to abuse, and are not effective crime fighters, the overall costs are too high.

It is misguided to think that cameras - rather than people - will help solve problems in the downtown community. A camera has never helped a lost child, assisted someone in a medical emergency or responded in another time of crisis.

In cooperation with residents, business owners, city planners and the community at large, the City should proceed with further investigation of alternatives to closed circuit security cameras.

The Downtown Business Improvement Area has offered to pay $85,000 towards camera installation and no more. The city would then subsidize all remaining expenses, which are potentially very high:

There are indicators from other cities in Ontario that the maintenance costs may be unreasonably high. London, Sudbury and Hamilton are all experiencing escalating costs. The City of London, for example, has spent over three quarters of a million dollars during the last two and a half years on its surveillance camera system with little tangible results. Despite spending $235,000 for state of the art cameras, London experienced 451 camera failures in 2002 and 506 failures in 2003. Indeed the costs have been so high that London recently cut $100,000 from its surveillance camera budget.

During this era of municipal debt, existing capital projects, and emerging sewage and water infrastructure needs, the City cannot afford new ventures that are unproven and controversial. Already, a flood surtax is being floated and property tax increases are imminent. In the case of cameras public money is being requested for private, localized benefit.

There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that surveillance cameras reduce crime. To the contrary, the vast majority of evidence suggests that cameras merely displace crime to other locations. At least a dozen recent studies (including three recent criminological reports from the Home Office, Scottish Office and Southbank University, a study by the US Department of Justice; the University of Hull, Brighton University and the University Hospital in Cardiff) have discredited the cameras effectiveness. Numerous police officials, criminologists, RCMP spokespeople and had admitted that cameras largely displace crime.

Because camera systems are so expensive and ineffective, many other cities across North America have dismantled their camera systems or refused to install new ones: (Sherbrooke, PQ; Mont Vernon, NY; Edmonton, AB; Miami Beach, FL; White Plains; Oakland, CA;). Others (i.e. London, ON; Ottawa, ON) have reduced or refused to expand their existing systems.

The City of Peterborough should not proceed with a potentially high operating expense when the effectiveness has not been adequately demonstrated.

There is substantial evidence demonstrating that surveillance cameras are prone to abuse. This abuse actually makes certain groups of people less safe in their communities. Among those most at risk are: women; people of colour; political activists; gays, lesbians and queer-identified people; homeless and street people.

Criminologist Clive Norris, Britain's leading authority on video surveillance, found endless reports of video voyeurism: operators taking close-up shots of women's breasts and taping them up on the wall. Norris also found that operators tend to focus their attention on young men, especially those with dark skin. Rather than eliminating racial profiling, video surveillance tends to amplify it.

Consider the evidence:

While one would hope that such abuses would not occur in this community, it should be noted that the City is currently in violation of its own guidelines with respect to existing cameras systems. In particular, there is no proper signage or contact information with respect to the surveillance cameras installed at Millennium Park. This violates both the city’s guidelines and those of the Ontario Privacy Commissioner. As a result, a complaint has been lodged with the Ontario Privacy Commission, the results of which are still pending.

The potential benefits of video surveillance must be carefully weighed against the loss of privacy within the community. Proponents of surveillance cameras claim, that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Unfortunately this assumes that our governments and police forces are entitled to monitor us at random. On the contrary, as stated by both provincial and federal privacy commissioners, agents of the state have no right to record and archive our whereabouts and actions. The onus rests squarely on the police to justify any invasion of our privacy in the name of law enforcement.

Former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest has argued that:

La Forest continues: "…comprehensive and continuous video surveillance … permits the police to systematically observe, often at high resolution and across a broad spatial expanse, everyone present within the camera’s or cameras’ range. This type of video surveillance is equivalent to having individual police officers closely follow, 24 hours a day, every person within a certain geographical space. That would be a police state, not a free society."

Complaints to both federal and provincial privacy commissioners have resulted in the dismantling camera systems in cities throughout Canada. In 2001, the federal privacy commissioner ruled that cameras installed in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, were unlawful. The Federal Privacy Commissioner also stated that cameras in Kelowna, B.C were also in violation of privacy law. Similar findings were reached by the Quebec Privacy Commissioner involving video surveillance in Sherbrooke in 1992. The cameras were found to be in contravention of Quebec's privacy legislation.

It is clear that the systematic video recording of citizens' movements and actions is in violation of our right to privacy as enshrined under federal and provincial acts. Only on a very limited, case-specific basis should video surveillance be used in law enforcement.

While the matter has yet to be fully resolved at the Supreme Court level, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that a court challenge might be launched in Peterborough.

Report PLPD04-085 provides no conclusive evidence to justify the need for cameras in the downtown core. While there is likely some validity to concerns about anti-social behaviour in the downtown core, existing problems must be properly evaluated to determine the most appropriate plan of action. For example, if a key concern downtown is that drunken individuals are urinating or vomiting on the streets after the bars close, cameras are probably not the most effective means to deal with the problem. Even if such incidents are recorded on camera, the police are unlikely to spend their time arresting such individuals. Further, according to the Peterborough Examiner, recent stats from the police department suggest that crime rates in the downtown have actually decreased.

Before proceeding any further, a full needs assessment should be conducted to determine the types, rates, severity and incidence of crime in the downtown. Such a needs assessment is in keeping with the Video Surveillance Guidelines provided by the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, which state: "The use of each video surveillance camera should be justified on the basis of verifiable, specific reports of incidents of crime or significant safety concerns."

The report provides no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate the effectiveness of surveillance cameras in combating crime. While the report mentions that the cities of London, Sudbury and, as of June 2004, Hamilton have installed cameras systems in their communities, there is no indication of their effectiveness.

On the contrary, there is evidence that cameras are displacing crime. In the case of Sudbury, overall violent crime has actually increased since cameras were installed in 1997. According to data available from Statistics Canada, between1997 and 2002, violent crime in Sudbury has increased by 2.27%. In contrast with a city of comparable size which does not have surveillance cameras, the city of Thunder Bay experienced a 5.75% decrease in violent crime during the same 1997 - 2002 period.

The report provides no information regarding estimated costs for Peterborough, costs incurred by other cities currently using surveillance systems, or a comparison of costs associated with different types of systems. While it is certainly difficult to provide specific details prior to proposing a system, cost is a major factor in determining potential use of cameras and so some preliminary information is needed.

The survey data provided in Report PLPD04-085 would not pass any scientific standards. The sample of respondents was not random and there was no mechanism in place to ensure that single respondents did not complete the survey multiple times. Moreover, at the community forums, respondents were provided with pro-camera materials prior to completing the survey, thus potentially skewing the results.

The Stop the Cameras Coalition completed its own informal survey of downtown businesses and found very different results from the one completed by Lance Sherk.

A team of volunteers visited 110 businesses in the downtown core and asked whether the respondents were A) in support of the cameras; B) Opposed to the cameras; C) undecided. Out of 110 businesses who were approached, 98 responded: