WE live in a time when there is great concern about individual privacy. The stories of identity theft are frightening. Nowadays, a person’s life can be ruined or destroyed by a con artist.
We all know of situations when bank accounts are cleaned out through “ATM skimming.” But we also grow frustrated when there is no ATM to be found. We hear stories of “fake” social-media accounts being set up to harass a person. Yet, we share information and pictures on that same social media that a short time ago would be considered private.
Experts tell us that our smartphones are recording, tracking and, perhaps, forwarding to third parties our locations, communications, and all about the pizza we ordered through a phone app. But we would not even think about leaving home without them.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government has entered into a contract with a Chinese firm for the installation of surveillance cameras. The plan is to install 12,000 cameras in Metro Manila and Davao City. It is estimated to be a P20-billion deal, with Huawei Technologies Co. supplying the hardware and state-owned China International Telecommunications and Construction Corp. offering to loan the money and installing the network.
The intrusion into our personal privacy by a closed-circuit television network is something that none of us really likes. Who wants to be followed around all day under the watchful eyes of the government? However, when a criminal is identified and caught because of a nearby CCTV that recorded the crime, no one cares about privacy. The murder case of Kian de los Santos was pursued in part because of the barangay’s CCTV footage showing something suspicious happening even if not directly related to de los Santos.
Nonetheless, one person on social media objects to the government CCTV contract because it is a “threat to civil liberties” and is being “implemented by a regime that has trampled on due process, a regime that has made lies a policy of governance.” Ignoring the politics, we have three options.
Government control of CCTV is fundamentally a constant threat to civil liberties and should be banned or used in extremely limited situations and places. Possibly, CCTV cameras should be turned on or off depending on who holds the power of government. But perhaps this surveillance technology is a vital part of protecting modern city life and we must depend on the legal system—with all its flaws—to insure our privacy and liberty. Tough choices to make, but only after thinking the issues through completely.
In addition to the privacy concerns, one senator said, “Don’t you think there is a security threat when China telecoms and Huawei will do surveillance system in Metro Manila?” Another voiced the opinion that “public interest requires that inquiry be made as to the threats to the Philippines’s national security contracts entered into with foreign companies whose questionable track record raises international concern.”
These are all valid comments. Every Chinese company doing business abroad is, in effect, an extension of the Beijing government. However, what these elected officials miss and fail to offer is an alternative solution. There is only one non-Chinese manufacturer of CCTV cameras.
From the land of Electrolux, Ikea and Volvo comes Sweden’s Axis Communications, the only competition to Chinese CCTV equipment. Axis CCTV cameras sell for six to 10 times more than the Chinese brands. As with privacy, sometimes financial considerations mean making hard decisions.