Should the state and its police agents maintain computer files on where you drove last week, or a year ago? Or a personal file on you, available to employers and others, that indicates whether an officer thought you could have been charged with an offence, even if you weren't?
Those are real public policy questions. The kind of "Big Brother" state surveillance of citizens that was once fantasy is now not only possible, but happening. And our laws to protect citizens' privacy have not kept pace with the technology.
Police in B.C., including the RCMP and Victoria and Saanich departments, have more than 40 camera-equipped cars that scan, record and file up to 3,000 licence plates per hour. The system flags stolen cars or suspended drivers. Until now, the "non-hit" data has been erased each day.
But police want to store all the information. If they see a need, they could check on everyone who might have been driving in a neighbourhood on any day, or map your travels.
The police would control the files and would not need approval for probing the lives of citizens.
You can make a case for giving police those powers. If a child is missing, perhaps a database of people driving in the neighbourhood could be useful. Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham and others argue that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But that argument relies on the assumption the state understands the potential for abuse, guards against it and is always benign and just in its dealings with citizens. It also assumes the information is reliable.
The evidence is that those assumptions are not warranted. When the Times Colonist asked the Victoria police department about its use of licence-plate recognition technology, the force offered a written statement that "VicPD has developed its own policies and procedures to govern the use of this technology, ensuring that it complies with all relevant legislation." But the department initially refused to release the policy. When the Times Colonist obtained the document, it was two pages long and made no mention of any "relevant legislation" or the protection of personal privacy.
And the licence-plate recognition cameras have a high error rate, meaning police could show up at the door of someone for no justifiable reason.
The police and the state naturally want every surveillance tool that will help ensure order. It makes their work - ensuring public safety - easier.
But without proper controls, these tools gives the state enormous power over citizens, which can easily be abused. That's already happening with the use of files from the police PRIME computer database. Every police force in the province has access to the files on 5.4 million people. It includes information on criminal charges and convictions, and data on police investigations. If you call to complain about a noisy neighbour, and an officer is troubled by your attitude, that can be noted as a "negative contact" in PRIME.
It is a valuable police tool. But employers are increasingly seeking information from PRIME before hiring, including information that goes beyond charges and convictions. There are no safeguards to ensure relevance or accuracy of information.
The province's privacy commissioner is investigating both the licence-plate recognition cameras and the use of police files by employers seeking information on applicants.
But the issues are merely symptoms. Technology has given the state vast powers to watch citizens and build databases on every aspect of their lives. Those can be useful. They can also be abused, erode citizens' basic rights and waste millions of dollars for little benefit.
Our privacy laws and safeguards have not kept pace. Police forces are making decisions on surveillance and privacy that rightly should be left to legislators. And citizens are being denied protection of their most basic rights to privacy and fair treatment.
