The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
Recent Posts
- Alberta's privacy commissioner concerned about ran...
- Boing Boing: Arkansas salon requires thumbprint to...
- Privacy and security are governace issues: ChoiceP...
- Even as summer dawns, the credit freeze is spreadi...
- Decision: Blood Tribe (Dept. of Health) v. Canada ...
- Giving credit where credit is due
- Don't leave your company secrets in the trash
- Whoa, Canada: SSN Request Doesn't Add Up
- More than 100 women complain after cancer test inf...
- Alberta Commissioner reports on inappropriate use ...
On Twitter
About this page and the author
The author of this blog,
David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the
firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.
For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.
Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
Privacy Calendar
Archives
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
Links
Blogs I Follow
Small Print
The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Vancouver considers proposal to cover downtown's trouble spots with CCTV
From the Vancouver Province, the City of Vancouver is considering a proposal to install a network of CCTV cameras in the downtown. There's just a bit of opposition, with civil liberties groups calling it a waste of resources:
Police raise spectre of cameras in downtown's troubled spots: Police board to hear results of British study before deciding CCTV's fate:"....A proposal to install 23 cameras in the Downtown Eastside was shelved in 2004, pending the results of the British study.
Barwatch, an organization that works with police to try to ensure patron safety in downtown establishments, is also onside with a CCTV system.
'They did it in Kelowna and it's been very effective,' said vice-chairman Vance Campbell.
Barwatch talked with police about a downtown system in the mid-1990s, but the idea was abandoned because of privacy concerns, Campbell said.
Meanwhile, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is opposed to the cameras as a 'colossal waste of resources' and an inexcusable invasion of privacy.
Those who claim otherwise are 'full of baloney,' said executive director Murray Mollard.
'They actually don't make a difference from an empirical point of view. I'm not even sure they make people feel safer,' Mollard said. 'It just displaces crime.'
The British study appears to support Mollard's views.
It looked at 14 systems with hundreds of cameras and evaluated their effectiveness. In the majority of the areas, crime rates actually increased.
Just two areas reported a statistically-significant reduction in recorded crime and only in one is it 'plausible that the role of CCTV was a significant factor in this reduction,' the report states.
After a legal battle pitting former federal privacy commissioner Don [sic] Radwanski against the city, Kelowna installed a permanent camera to watch a section of its downtown.
The case against the camera was tossed out of court in the summer of 2003. Mayor Walter Gray said the monitoring device is an effective crime reduction tool."
Labels: information breaches, surveillance, video surveillance
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
