On January 16 the ratepayers of Wollongong were saddled with a $ 4600 cleanup bill. Television news and the local newspaper ran pictures of a damaged Mall and the story was told that a young man ran amok in the wee small hours of the morning, puncturing cans of both acrylic and oil based paint as he splashed a trail over the Mall pavers, fronts of buildings - and even parked cars.
This was not an attack carried out with haste. It took nearly an hour and it progressed from one end of the Mall to the other - and it was all recorded on cctv cameras. Considering that these cameras are under police surveillance, it is a fair question to ask how this could continue for such a period of time without the offender being arrested ?
A second pertinent question concerns the images these cameras captured. They clearly show the offender and the defacing of public property breaks several laws. Ratepayers have every right to expect that this culprit should appear before a court and be punished for his actions. It seems that so far the police have not been able to put a name to a face - and he has not been identified.
What leaves many ratepayers gobsmacked - is the reluctance of the relevant authorities to release these images and invite the public to help with catching the person who did this wilful damage. It seems that the images will be withheld " to protect this man's right to privacy ".
It seems that there are many interpretations of just what that word - " Privacy " - means and how the privacy laws will be applied. We are photographed without our permission every time we withdraw money from an ATM. Most stores have a cctv system endlessly recording us as we shop - and the police collect evidence on our driving habits from the vast array of speeding and red light cameras.
It seems that recording images breaks no law, yet what happens next merges into a very grey area. Shops that display pictures of shoplifters stealing their wares come under fire from the civil liberties people. Despite the fact that these people are breaking the law, their privacy is more important than achieving a conviction.
Privacy intrudes into our ability to obtain legal redress in other subtle ways. Should we have witnesses to a car accident in which our vehicle is damaged - seeking to find the owner of the offending vehicle by way of it's registration numbers is refused by the licensing authority and the police - on privacy grounds.
It seems to be a very fine line between " aiding and abetting a crime " by refusing to give vital information, and it's collision with an individual's right to anonymity. It seems time that the air was cleared - if necessary by the passage of an unequivocal law - to strip away privacy rights when they clearly illustrate a law breach.
We have a right to discover who owns a car that has caused us damage - and the citizens of Wollongong have a right to know who saddled them with a $ 4600 cleanup bill !
No comments:
Post a Comment