Address concerns around surveillance cameras

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to the recent news item in The Gleaner titled, ‘Holness: You gonna get cameras so til you don’t know what to do with it’. I have some concerns regarding this proposed move. Is it legal for the Government of Jamaica to install surveillance cameras to monitor people without first passing laws that explicitly authorise such actions — laws that, by nature, could infringe on our sacred right to privacy?

Have people been informed about what this surveillance entails and the implications it may hold for their private lives? Are there safeguards in place to ensure that our rights are not trampled on in the name of security? And, more pressingly, do these cameras operate within the boundaries of existing Jamaican law?

Where, precisely, are these cameras being installed? Are they meant to capture traffic violations or to deter and document actual crimes occurring in public spaces? What do our existing laws say about surveillance equipment and its admissibility in Jamaican courts? Is such evidence plausible, or is it a slippery slope toward authoritarian oversight?

This brings us to the heart of democratic governance: Has Prime Minister Andrew Holness and his administration engaged in a transparent dialogue with the people? Does this policy require a referendum, or at least bipartisan support in Parliament, to move forward?

Moreover, where is this surveillance technology coming from, what is the cost to the Jamaican taxpayer, and how long are we committed to this arrangement?

We are proud, free people. Let us not trade our liberty for security without question or consent that solves one problem but creates another.

REV RENALDO MCKENZIE