In 2024, Western Canada Security added new video-monitoring supports for our clients. That’s an exciting development for us. But those CCTV capabilities come with some uncomfortable questions about the natural tension between security and privacy.
To help advance our exploration of relevant ethical and legal issues, WCS President Inderbir Singh sat down for an in-depth conversation with Elizabeth Denham CBE, a decorated regulator of information and privacy. She led the world’s largest data-protection authority (in the UK) during the years that social media, biometric surveillance, and citizens’ concern for techno-privacy all took hold. Ms. Denham generously took a few hours away from her busy schedule for a candid discussion.
We sought her input because security cameras and individual privacy can seem at odds, when viewed from a distance. But zoom in. They both concern protection. So, the issue is not black or white. It’s a matter of adjudicating tricky trade-offs. From day one, WCS felt certain about what side of the protection-spectrum we want to be on. Our staff secure people and property in a way that respects individual rights as well as the public’s expectations for privacy, dignity, and freedom from undue surveillance. How to do that methodically was a key topic of the day’s discussion. And thanks to her strong background in administering privacy laws, Denham gave us a simple method for evaluating client requests.
Imagine a property developer asks us to implement full-scope protections for a construction site in Victoria. Questions around physical guards and mobile patrols are quite straightforward. Those services have been around for a long time, and the legal issues are settled. But if the same developer wants to install AI-enabled CCTV monitoring as well as biometric access-controls for workers, we will have to proceed cautiously and provide expert advice based on careful analysis.
Using biometric access-controls, such as fingerprint scans, will certainly help prevent unauthorized persons from accessing the site. That digital barrier helps protect the client’s property as well as citizens who would be at risk on a jobsite full of significant hazards. Some workers might object, however, to having their personal information copied, uploaded, and stored digitally. In collaboration with the client, we would have to ask three important questions. In Denham’s words, which echo principles enshrined in privacy law, “is the solution reasonable? Is it proportionate? And is it effective?” Additionally, we would have to investigate whether less-intrusive options were available, either as an alternative path or as an exception for those workers who do not want to share their fingerprints with an employer.
Turning to another capability of WCS’ new AI-enabled video monitoring, our cameras can detect whether all staff at a construction site are wearing the necessary protective equipment. It knows whether they’re using it properly, too. That deployment of advanced technology would seem reasonable and proportionate in a workplace with mortal risks at every turn. And we know from rigorous testing that these detections are reliably effective. In that scenario, then, it may be deemed unreasonable for a worker to strongly object to a use of video monitoring that feels unfamiliar to them. Advising on educational initiatives for the client’s workforce might be an important next step in WCS’s engagement. “Without buy-in from all stakeholders,” Denham said, advanced security measures will just be “shiny, new toys”rather than sustainable solutions with long-term benefits.
From there, Inderbir went on to ask pointed questions about the “reasonableness” legal standard. “I can choose to simply trust my instinct,” he said, “but the way that a company’s leadership or a staff member or a one-time customer will feel about surveillance software will be dramatically different. So, what’s involved in setting the bar high enough to please everyone involved?”
“These are unanswerable questions,” Denham responded with a laugh. “Because what’s ‘reasonable’ changes. The law shifts. Its interpretation changes. And public sentiment evolves over time.”
At this point, she introduced the concept of a “creepiness factor” that can help guide our decisions. Consider the example of a corporation that knows someone internal has been leaking sensitive information to competitors. “There would be a strong business case for secretly implementing key-stroke monitoring to catch the bad actor,” Denham said. “But something feels off, too, doesn’t it?” In our view, a measure like that one treats everyone like a criminal suspect. And the idea of being surveilled without your knowledge is truly creepy. Many would think secret key-stroke monitoring is unreasonable and disproportionate in this context–no matter how effective it might be.
We greatly appreciate Denham’s illustration. It solidifies the point that striving to meet all three requirements (reasonableness, proportionality, and effectiveness) does set a high bar for any imaginable security solution. Denham also brought home the fact that clearly notifying people about how they’re being monitored puts WCS on the side of transparency (not to mention legal compliance) and away from the dreaded “creepiness” factor.
Throughout the conversation, Inderbir and Denham discussed a host of requirements that stem from Human Rights, labour laws, and privacy expectations expressed by increasingly well-informed and well-protected citizens. “Oh boy,” said Denham, “I’m making this sound more complicated than it is. It all comes down to a reasonable business purpose.” We will repeat that comment to our clients, while we collaborate with them to strike the right balance between privacy and security. And we could add this, too: whatever is absolutely necessary for security is likely possible.