There is an ongoing debate about whether installing CCTV in kindergartens is effective in preventing child abuse, or whether it violates the fundamental rights of teachers and children. It is argued that installing CCTV is simply a stopgap measure and not a solution to the underlying problem, and that improving the quality of teachers and educating them on child abuse prevention is a more important solution.
We are always being watched by CCTV. If you go out in public, you can easily observe CCTV cameras watching you from the ceiling. In fact, when CCTV was first installed, many people were strongly opposed to it, citing invasion of privacy. However, over time, these objections have faded away, and now almost everyone walks in front of a CCTV without any resistance. The idea that CCTV is an invasion of privacy has become a part of our daily lives, and we take its presence for granted.
The reason for this widespread deployment is that CCTV is not just an invasion of privacy, but also has a positive effect on crime prevention. As many experiments and cases have shown, CCTV has become an important tool to justify a certain degree of invasion of privacy for public purposes. The role of CCTV in preventing crime, especially in public spaces, has already been proven in many studies.
Until recently, however, kindergartens were outside the scope of mandatory CCTV installation, as they are an important place where children first come into contact with society, where they are free to play and learn. However, after the incident of a kindergarten teacher assaulting a child, parents realized that kindergartens and nurseries were never safe from child abuse incidents. The incident sent shockwaves through society, and the Ministry of Education began recommending that kindergartens install CCTV. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education subsidizes the cost of installing CCTV, and the number of kindergartens installing CCTV is increasing. As a result, the National Assembly is actively debating a bill to make it mandatory to install CCTV in daycare centers.
There’s no denying that CCTV can help prevent child abuse crimes. However, whenever there is a high-profile incident involving violence or crime in the media, people tend to feel unsafe. Governments are pushing for CCTV installations to address this situation, but it’s questionable whether this is the best solution. We’re used to invading people’s privacy for the greater good, but this mentality carries the risk of human rights violations. In light of this, we’d like to question the legality of installing CCTV in kindergartens.
First, there is the issue of violating fundamental rights. I think many people take the issue of violating fundamental rights too lightly. Among the fundamental rights, the installation of CCTV directly violates the right to privacy. The right to privacy refers to the right not to be photographed or published without one’s consent, and it can be seen as a violation of this fundamental right when the school board pushes for and mandates the installation of CCTV without the consent of the kindergarten teachers, without establishing specific promises or principles between them. Rushing to install CCTV for the sole purpose of preventing crime is not a good idea, as it does not take into account the right to privacy of parents and children.
Many people may argue that CCTV is in the public interest, especially in kindergartens, and that it can limit the fundamental rights of individuals to a certain extent to prevent crime, and that CCTV is obliged to be installed in public spaces and that kindergartens are public spaces. However, the National Human Rights Commission has also stated that even if CCTV is installed to prevent school violence, it may be a violation of human rights because the behavior of all students and teachers in the classroom is recorded, and the fundamental rights such as personal portrait, freedom of action, and freedom of expression may be restricted due to constant surveillance. This means that the ends never justify the means. Moreover, if the purpose of installing CCTV is to prevent child abuse, it will inevitably lead to the perception of teachers as potential child abusers, which raises the question of whether it is necessary to violate these fundamental rights in addition to violating human rights and violating the right to education.
Secondly, CCTV is not a fundamental solution. The government’s policy of solving these problems with machines is not a solution. This is evident when you look at the pro-choice side of the argument. The proponents of CCTV argue for its installation on the grounds that access to the footage will be limited, meaning that only parents, law enforcement, and authorized officials will be able to view it in cases of suspected child abuse. However, this basically violates the first argument, which is that continuous filming is a violation of fundamental rights, and it seems to be an admission of future child abuse. In other words, it’s not a solution to the underlying problem, it’s just a stopgap measure. Furthermore, the government hasn’t proposed any other solution besides installing CCTV. It’s doubtful that installing CCTV as a crime deterrent will solve human problems.
It is argued that it is not a fundamental solution, and that installing CCTV can create a balloon effect. The balloon effect is a phenomenon where solving one problem creates a new problem on the other side. If you install CCTV to reduce crime, it may actually increase crime in areas that don’t have it. Likewise, child abuse by teachers can happen at any time in places without CCTV.
Proponents may argue that CCTV is a stopgap measure to rebuild trust between teachers and parents. However, the money spent on a band-aid is just watering down the poison. If there is already a problem with teachers and you don’t address the underlying issues, the problem will eventually return. Some people may look at the Incheon orphanage and say, “It’s a good thing they had CCTV, otherwise they would have let this teacher go.” But another way to look at it is that the assault happened despite the presence of CCTV. From this point of view, it is questionable whether CCTV can serve as a stopgap measure.
Instead, the teachers who need to be punished should be punished, and the money spent on installing CCTV should be used to improve the treatment of teachers and their educational qualities. In the long run, these investments would be more effective in solving the underlying problem.
The proponents emphasize the seriousness of the current situation and argue for the installation of CCTV to address it. They argue that it is inevitable to limit individual freedoms to some extent for public purposes, and since kindergartens are public spaces where children and teachers meet and interact, it makes sense to install CCTV. However, even for the sake of the public good, there should be clear limits to the violation of fundamental rights. CCTV in kindergartens can lead to ongoing violations of fundamental rights, and there is a high potential for restriction of behavior and infringement of freedom of expression. It is only a stopgap measure to solve the problem at hand, and it is never the solution.
Instead, we should be looking to address the underlying issues, not just install CCTV. This is why we need to improve the quality of teachers, increase training on child abuse prevention, and create an environment where they can maintain positive relationships with children. In the end, we don’t want to legalize the installation of CCTV that simply violates the fundamental rights of teachers and children.
