CCTV and surveillance systems contribute to crime prevention and policing, but their proliferation risks violating our privacy and fundamental human rights. Uncritical acceptance of surveillance without clear agreements on who is subject to surveillance, its purpose, data management, and so on, needs to be guarded against, and a public debate is needed.
“We are filming a crackdown on littering. If caught, you will be fined up to 1 million won.”
A bright light and a warning voice startle passersby near a trash recycling facility: an automated warning system is triggered when you come within 15 meters of a designated area. This is how so-called “talking CCTV” prevents littering. The behavior of some unscrupulous people who used to sneak out in the middle of the night to dump trash has been put to rest thanks to the 24-hour monitors. Many municipalities that have been plagued by illegal dumping are increasingly installing “talking CCTV”.
As you can see, surveillance systems, including CCTV, are ubiquitous and growing in number. There are devices on the roads, inside buildings, and even in many cars that record people’s every move. According to government statistics, there were more than 560,000 public CCTV cameras at the end of 2013. Additionally, if you include private businesses and property owners, the number of CCTVs in the country is estimated to be as high as 5 million.
Surveillance systems are highly effective in preventing crime and illegal behavior, and provide valuable evidence during criminal investigations and dispute resolution. For example, in the Incheon child abuse scandal that shocked South Korea in 2015, CCTV footage was crucial evidence in the investigation. However, the increased use of surveillance systems is not always welcome. This is because it is directly related to our private lives. As CCTV’s blind spots shrink, we are no longer free from surveillance wherever we go. According to the aforementioned government statistics, college students are exposed to CCTV an average of 228 times a day and office workers 130 times a day. With the exception of extremely private spaces like our homes and restrooms, we are always being recorded by someone.
However, most people don’t really object to this reality. Instead, they believe that some level of surveillance is inevitable for the sake of law and order. This is certainly true. The problem is that we are rapidly becoming surveilled ourselves without much discussion about who is doing the surveillance or how much. In most cases, we are not being asked for our consent. According to the “Privacy Guidelines” published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1980, the collection and aggregation of personal data without the consent of the data subject is a clear violation of privacy.
Some argue that there’s nothing wrong with this because law enforcement or maintaining order takes precedence over privacy. But this is a very dangerous idea. Surveillance has power that cannot be ignored. Surveillance has the power to unilaterally take information from the person being monitored. This includes everything from the target’s appearance, behavior, and environment. With this information, the surveillance subject can easily gain an advantage in the relationship with the target. The surveillant has access to information and can act on it, while the target does not. This unequal relationship is why we accept surveillance systems: it’s a kind of contract for security. The surveillance target unilaterally provides their information, but the surveillance entity promises to use the information only for the purpose of policing and security, thus creating a contract. However, the problem is that there is a risk that the surveillance entity may misuse the information. Let’s take a look at the dangers of a society with indiscriminate surveillance, depending on whether the surveillance entity is a state, a company, or an individual.
The first is when the surveillance entity is a public authority. When Edward Snowden revealed the existence of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) secret privacy collection program PRISM in 2013, the United States was shocked, and many South Koreans joined the filibuster to prevent the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act. People are afraid that these surveillance systems will become an unstoppable instrument of power and control, reminiscent of the “telescreens” in George Orwell’s novel 1984. In the novel, Big Brother uses telescreens to monitor and control people 24 hours a day. Everything you say and do is censored, and individual ideas are completely ignored. The protagonist, Winston Smith, has a problem with this and secretly dreams of overthrowing the system with his girlfriend Julia, but he is eventually caught in an inescapable surveillance network and is tortured and indoctrinated. Of course, this is a novel that posits an extreme totalitarianism, and it seems unlikely that such a world would actually arrive. But the power of the “telescreen” in fiction is enough to alert us to our uncritical acceptance of surveillance. Whenever we give up our right to be unobserved in the name of policing and security, we should keep in mind that the surveillance entity wields a lot of power.
In the private sector, including companies, we can look at a more fundamental issue. It’s a violation of the “right to be unobserved.” In the case of the Incheon daycare center mentioned above, public pressure led to the passage of an amendment to the Infant and Child Care Act requiring daycare centers to install CCTV and store videos for at least 60 days. This was about four months after the CCTV footage was released. Many people breathed a sigh of relief, saying they could finally leave their children with peace of mind. However, we have to consider the position of the childcare workers who work in the nurseries. From a customer’s point of view, exposure to surveillance is active in that they can choose where they want to receive services, which means they can opt in or out of surveillance as long as they are informed about it in advance. However, workers, such as childcare workers, are in a different position. They are forced to be exposed to surveillance systems if their employers do not want them to be. This high-pressure surveillance is a violation of their human rights. However, in the name of efficiency, these human rights violations are on the rise. According to the National Human Rights Commission, the number of “CCTV-related complaints and consultations” in workplaces more than tripled from 301 in 2005 to 1,031 in 2010. This trend has continued since then, with the number of complaints and consultations exceeding 1,500 in 2023. Specific cases range from overhearing employee conversations via CCTV to monitoring workers’ attendance. People who have sought counseling have complained to the Human Rights Commission that they feel “watched.” If CCTV is unconditionally accepted in the name of safety and efficiency, workers’ right to be free from surveillance is trampled on.
Next, let’s look at the case where the surveillance subject is an individual who has not been authorized by the state. This is the case of private businesses such as convenience stores and restaurants. According to Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, “Every citizen shall have the right to secrecy and freedom of private life.” Surveillance systems installed by public authorities are relatively well organized and managed in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. However, the management of surveillance systems installed by private individuals is weak. According to Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Personal Information Protection Act, when installing and operating CCTV, a signboard must be installed stating: 1. the purpose and location of the installation, 2. the scope and time of recording, and 3. the name and contact information of the person in charge of management. However, many businesses do not install a signboard because it is considered to be disruptive to the atmosphere, or if they do, they simply place a small sign in the corner of the business that says “CCTV is recording”. Under the current law, if a business is found to be in violation, it will be advised to make corrections, and if it fails to do so, it will be fined. However, the law is not effective due to the difficulty of enforcing it in a large number of private businesses. As a result, most customers are not even aware of the presence of CCTV. The problem doesn’t stop there. The data collected can be used at the whim of the surveillance company. Even if the customer has been informed of the existence of CCTV and has implicitly consented to the filming, how it is used is a matter of separate consent. However, currently, the management of surveillance systems in private businesses is entirely in the hands of individuals. This means that the data obtained from surveillance systems, including footage, can be used for criminal purposes at any time. For example, capturing footage of people entering and leaving an underwear store and uploading it to the internet is a crime that can happen at any time if the individual managing the CCTV system has the wrong idea.
Underlying the logic behind the use of automated surveillance systems, including CCTV, is the fear of unexpected accidents or crimes. This fear and the human tendency to prepare for it is very natural. However, the use of surveillance systems as a solution should be approached very carefully. Of course, the effectiveness of surveillance systems in preventing crime or as evidence in the event of a conflict is positive. However, as we’ve seen, surveillance is a double-edged sword: if used indiscriminately and without full consideration of its impact, it can not only deny us our basic human right to privacy, but also make us unwitting targets of crime.
Therefore, we need to find a consensus on surveillance systems through concrete discussions as soon as possible. We need to agree on the subjects of the surveillance system, who will manage the data obtained from it, and how long the data will be kept. Without these agreements, it’s impossible to trust surveillance systems. As with any great power, surveillance is a threat without strict controls. In the end, the solution paradoxically lies in how well we can police surveillance systems.
As a first step, we need to move away from the passive stance of unconditionally accepting surveillance systems in the name of safety and security. This is not to say that we shouldn’t have surveillance. It’s just that we need to remember that when we blindly accept surveillance systems uncritically in the name of safety and security, our privacy and security can be jeopardized.
In addition, companies should stop installing CCTV for time and attendance management, and if they need to install CCTV for safety reasons, they should establish bylaws that prohibit the use of CCTV for other purposes. This will require an agreement on the surveillance system between the labor union and the company, and the labor union will need to continuously check that the agreement is implemented.
Finally, countries should put in place legal mechanisms to ensure that people cannot be monitored without reason unless there is a direct threat to their safety, such as terrorism. They should also ensure people’s right to know through legislative hearings before the law becomes effective, and improve the law to reflect people’s voices.
We all have the “right to be unobserved”. We should not take it for granted that this right is trampled on, even if it is for good causes. We should be vigilant and outraged. Only with this critical consciousness will we be able to create a surveillance system we can trust.
