Privacy !

A conflict between the need for home security and the privacy which we are entitled to enjoy in our own home is causing the Law and Justice Committee to hold an enquiry into the placement of private security cameras.   This is now the biggest area of complaints, only headed by the issue of "revenge pawn " - when revealing photographs or video are shown on the Internet by a discarded lover.

For a very few dollars the electronics industry is offering multi cameras that may be placed to view all aspects of the owner's property and screen this view to a computer screen in the house, or beam it to the owner's smartphone.  This offers a record of any approach to the building which deters thieves and often allows police to identify the bandits should a robbery occur.   It is a genuine tool in home security - and it fully complies with the law.

The problem is that these cameras usually also overlook surrounding property.   It is quite unnerving to some people to know that whenever they enter their yard or do a spot of gardening they are being watched by a camera pointed towards their property.  In some cases, sensitive people have taken to hiding behind umbrellas whenever they venture outdoors because this privacy thing has become a phobia.

This " invasion of privacy " issue becomes acute where a private swimming pool is under surveillance.   Many people install a swimming pool on their property to avoid public beaches and expect to be able to relax in brief swimming costumes in the ultimate privacy of their own backyard.  This is entirely negated if they are conscious that every minute is being viewed by a neighbouring security camera.

It is illegal to invade the privacy of others by flying a camera equipped drone over neighbouring properties or installing cameras over the boundary line, but having such cameras on your side of the property line is entirely within the law.   The only redress seems to favour the rich.   It is possible to launch a costly action in the Supreme court with a claim that such cameras are a " nuisance " and should be removed, but success is far from assured.

In the vast majority of cases this privacy issue is unwarranted.  The cameras deliver a security function and are only watched in the aftermath of an incident, but in the hands of a voyeur they can be a source of titillation.   Of course, such a person has every right to look out a window or stand on their patio and observe the goings-on next door, but it is the issue of uncertainty that worries many people.

This problem is likely to get worse.  The cost of such security equipment has fallen precipitously and the quality has been enhanced to near professional levels.   It is a very real option for those worried about building security and the very presence of such high profile cameras actually deters thieves.

We live with camera surveillance whenever we enter a shopping centre, travel on a train or walk the streets of most cities.   The ubiquitous camera is fast becoming a feature on the windscreen of cars - to record minor accidents and apportion blame.   It is unlikely that legislation can be enacted to deliver the degree of home privacy that many people seek.

The only option seems to be - learn to smile for the camera !