A former administrator in the Rural Municipality of La Broquerie has alleged that town politicians installed hidden video surveillance cameras in nearly every room in the municipality offices to secretly spy on rival councillors, staff and even the public.
Manitoba’s Ombudsman is investigating these explosive allegations. If they are true, it is very hard to image a legal defence. But can the use of covert video surveillance ever be legal?
After all, the use of hidden cameras is extremely privacy-invasive. That’s because video surveillance involves the collection of significant amounts of personal information that may be unrelated to the initial purposes for their use.
A hidden camera may be set up to monitor one individual but it records every person who walks in front of the lense. The technology does not discriminate. It monitors everyone regardless of whether they are a criminal or a law-abiding citizen. This can lead to judgments being made about individuals who have nothing to do with the purpose for using the cameras in the first place.
For example, covert video surveillance may be used to monitor an individual suspected of breaking a law or contract. When recording the individual, other persons may also be recorded. Guilt by association may lead to conclusions about the other persons that may not be accurate.
Yet, covert video surveillance can be legal. In fact, in limited circumstances it may be necessary. This may shock or even offend some privacy advocates, but the fact is that our privacy laws do not provide an absolute right to privacy.
Given the inherent privacy-invasiveness of hidden video surveillance cameras, however, organizations should tread carefully before installing the technology. There are a number of considerations that are factored by lawyers on a case by case basis to assess whether covert video surveillance is appropriate.
One of these considerations is whether an organization has a basis to support the use of covert video surveillance, above and beyond a mere suspicion that someone is breaking the law. Hidden cameras should not be installed on a hunch. There needs to be demonstrable evidence that the person to be secretly recorded is actually doing something worthy of having their privacy invaded by the technology.
Privacy-invasive
Organizations should also consider other means of collecting the personal information given the inherent intrusiveness of the technology. Would covert video surveillance be the most appropriate method of collecting personal information under the circumstances when compared to less privacy-invasive methods?
If town politicians in La Broquerie are proven to have installed hidden video surveillance cameras as alleged, it’s very difficult to see how these considerations have been met.
That being said, the use of covert video surveillance can be legal in limited circumstances. And as the technology proliferates in future, I expect to learn of more cases where the appropriateness of its use will be questioned.
— Brian Bowman is a partner with the law firm of Pitblado LLP. He is a nationally recognized leader in privacy and access to information law who writes a blog @ brianbowman.ca.
the winnipeg sandbox
