The Expansion of Surveillance Tools in Schools: Restoring Constitutional Values

Image Credits: express.co.uk

“Data is a toxic asset. We need to start thinking about it as such, and treat it as we would any other source of toxicity. To do anything else is to risk our security and privacy.”

- Bruce Schneier

GROWTH OF CCTV CAMERAS

Walter Bruch, a German Engineer, is credited with designing the first CCTV system in 1942, for the purpose of monitoring the launch of V-2 rockets. However, in today’s age, these cameras can be installed in any public space (schools, shopping centres, hospitals etc.) or in homes in the name of personal security. The deployment of these technologies has been largely due to the fear of domestic crimes or terrorism and to aid law enforcement agencies for investigative purposes. Governments exploit the emotions of public anger, fear and animosity prompted by the carnage - (be it 1994 Heathrow Airport mortar attacks in Britain, 9/11 attack in the USA or the 2008 Mumbai attacks or the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris) and add an additional layer of surveillance. In 2017, John Brennan, the then director of CIA said - ‘It’s a wretched yet predictable ritual after each new terrorist action: Certain politicians and government officials waste no time exploiting the tragedy for their own ends.’ The Boston Marathon Bombing in April 2013 illustrates how broad proactive surveillance is not a panacea against crimes. All of these serious terrorism cases argue not for the gathering of ever vaster troves of information but a better understanding of the information already gathered through conventional law enforcement and intelligence methods. However, deployment of privacy invasive technology for law enforcement efforts can be rebutted too. The central storyline of Bin Laden’s capture was that he used only trusted couriers to communicate as Al Qaeda knew for decades to avoid electronic means of communication. This fear not only endangers privacy but gives boom to “surveillance capitalism.”

However, CCTV is not the only technology that is under scrutiny by the pro-privacy society. When one reads the emerging literature on children and surveillance, there are several technologies like prenatal testing[1], baby monitors[2], nanny cams[3], RFID clothing[4], GPS tracking devices[5], cell phones[6], home drug[7], semen tests, surveillance toys, automated fingerprint identification systems, iris/vein scanners and metal detectors which are endangering right to privacy of children. However, the present article focuses mainly on facial recognition software (FRS) embedded CCTV cameras inside classrooms.

IMPACT OF CCTV CAMERAS ON CHILDREN

In Indian schools, especially in New Delhi, the government is carrying out a project to install CCTV cameras inside all classrooms. The reasons given by the government is that of crime deterrence and disciplining students. However, does education means just imparting discipline rather than imparting creative learning and a critical attitude towards given knowledge. Building panopticon around a child, whether at home or in school, bars students from experimenting and expressing themselves. A primary study by the Faculty of Centre for Learning Innovation, Queensland University of Technology showcased that student’s borrowing behaviours, range of topics discussed and the writing style of their contributions made to asynchronous discussion forums (a text-based computer-mediated communication environment that allows. individuals to interact with one another without the constraint of time and place) are influenced by the degree to which such activities are perceived to be surveilled by the institution and the teaching staff.[8]

The CCTV camera installed in the class provides live feed to parents. The government states that a person with a username and password can access the live feed. Hacking password or the live feed portal itself in today’s age is not a distant dream and thus jeopardises the safety and security of children, especially girls. This technology gives rise to parallel crimes like voyeurism and stalking. How would it look in a class - CCTV gazing at a girl having sudden menstruation and baffled at the changes in her body and handling her reproductive health. It is preposterous to have those private actions subjected to scrutiny of the community and amounts to a gross violation of the right to dignity of the children. Freedom of speech must always be dependent on the capacity to think, read and write in private and is often exercised in a state of privacy. Thereby, such technologies endangers our Right to Privacy and Freedom of speech and expression and has a chilling effect on the growth and development of children. Live feed of the footage would have an effect on community gathering too, as some conservative parents/patriarchal societies would not give their children the freedom to interact with whom they choose. In some cases, males would not be able to interact with females or children would be insisted to maintain distance from students belonging to another class, caste, creed or religion. Individuals need a sanctuary where they can be free from social control.[9] The sanctuary of a classroom is one, which needs such protection.

APPROACH TO RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

There is no dispute that law enforcement agencies should have the necessary powers to detect and stop attacks before they happen. But that does not mean the unquestioning acceptance of ineffective or unconstitutional tactics that reduce civil liberties without making the public safer. In the absence of technology-wise privacy frameworks the surveillance market players should justify the following measures: 1) Limit the Collection of Data 2) Clear rules on Legal Process required for collection 3) The Amount and Type of Data stored and Retained 4) Limit the combination of more than one biometric in a Single Database 5) Robust Security Procedures to minimise threat of Imposters 6) Standardisation of Audit Trails and Accountability and, 7) Ensuring Independent Oversight.[10]

Today, one may accept modest uses of FRS enabled CCTV cameras for beneficial law enforcement and disciplining purposes, but ultimately may wake up to a world in which it has become pervasive and pernicious—either alone or in connection with a variety of other tools. The time has come to recognise that the approach of mass surveillance encroaches upon democracy and must be replaced by a more targeted, more intelligent, and thus more effective approach. In the words of leading privacy expert, Daniel J. Solove, a “combination of self-regulation as well as legislation and agency supervision” will be the best solution.“ Self-regulation alone lacks the teeth and uniformity to be effective, but when combined with reasonable and flexible legislation, self-regulation can be effective in many ways.[11]

---

Author: Harsh Bajpai

---

[1] Stein, R. 2009. "Blood Samples Raise Questions of Privacy." Washington Post, June 30. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903118_pf.html (accessed September 1, 2009).

[2] BabyMonitor.com. 2009a. 'Brands you know and trust.' http://www.babymonitor.com/

[3] Jørgensen, V. 2004. "The Apple of the Eye: Parents' Use of Webcams in a Danish Day Nursery." Surveillance & Society 2(2/3): 446-463.

[4] Sullivan, L. 2009. "Apparel Maker Tags RFID for Kids' Sleepwear." InformationWeek, July 13.

[5] INSTA GPS. 2008. 'Kiditel: A GPS device that gives peace of mind to worried parents.' http://www.instagps.com/entry/kiditel-a-gps-device-that-gives-peace-of-mind-to-worried-parents/

[6] Sprint. 2009a. 'About Sprint Family Locator.' https://sfl.sprintpcs.com/finder-sprint-family/signIn.htm

[7] First Check. 2009a. 'Project 7th grade.' http://www.firstcheckfamily.com/about__________first_check/supporting_project_7th_grade.aspx

[8] Dawson, Shane and Burnett, Bruce and McArdle, Felicity (2005) Watching Learning From Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Surveillance on Student Online Behaviour. In Proceedings : ELearn 2005: World conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare and higher education, Vancouver, Canada.

[9] Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1975) 2 SCC 148].

[10] Jennifer Lynch, “Face off: Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Technology”, Electronic Frontier Foundation, May 2019, Available at https://www.eff.org/wp/face-off.

[11] Jeddiah Bracy, “Should faceprints be considered PII”, IAPP, available at https://iapp.org/news/a/2012-03-01-facial-recognition-technology-should-faceprints-be-considered-pe/.