Editorial | JamaicaEye regulation

This newspaper has long supported the deployment of closed-circuit cameras in public spaces as tools to help fight and deter crime.

When a crime takes place and the incident is recorded, that video can provide crucial evidence to bring the perpetrator(s) to justice. Similarly, if criminals know there is a good chance that their actions might be caught on film, they may be deterred from committing crimes. Given Jamaica’s high crime levels, this has particular resonance.

The Gleaner’s Editorial Board, therefore, welcomes the recent report that more than 300 new public-facing cameras will be added to the Government’s JamaicaEye network and that it has entered into a separate contract to maintain existing ones.

However, even as the board supports these initiatives, recent rapid advances in digital technology, coupled with increasing evidence of its abuse in other jurisdictions that infringe on citizens’ rights to privacy and free association, underscore the need for a robust and transparent regulatory regime for JamaicaEye. If such a framework exists, the public appears to know little about it. Who has access to JamaicaEye’s data, and under what circumstances?

At the same time, Parliament should consider reviewing the broad authority granted to the minister of national security to exempt citizens from data-privacy protections under the Data Protection Act (DPA) on the grounds of safeguarding national security. Perhaps this power should be vested in a judge in chambers, acting on the minister’s ex parte application and supported by credible evidence. This issue received little public scrutiny before the DPA’s passage in 2020.

AIM OF JAMAICAEYE

Launched in 2018, JamaicaEye is a network of cameras, primarily in urban centres, aimed at enhancing the ability of law-enforcement agencies to detect, deter, and investigate criminal activity while improving public safety. Private citizens and businesses can also integrate their cameras into the network. While there have been anecdotal reports of JamaicaEye footage helping to identify criminal activity and leading to arrests, there has been no clear account of its overall effectiveness. Nor has there been any publicly reported audit of outcomes.

The general perception is that the programme has not lived up to its early promise. This is partly because of insufficient investment as technology evolved. In its early years, some of the equipment was also vandalised or stolen.

More than a year and a half ago, National Security Minister Dr Horace Chang reported that there were about 1,000 cameras in the JamaicaEye network. A significant number were not functioning either because of outdated technology or the lack of maintenance.

“Since we have gone digital with the telecommunications system, nobody in the country has an effective islandwide technology-maintenance system,” he said. “There is no national body with a full maintenance programme. There are a significant number of cameras that are down.”

The Government was, at the time, negotiating with a maintenance partner. The result appears to be the $351.1-million contract awarded in July to Konnexx Services Limited, a well-known maintenance contractor for digital-services providers.

A second contract, valued at $439.4 million, was awarded to Sitewatch Electronic Security Limited to supply and install more than 300 CCTV cameras and related infrastructure, mainly in Portmore.

These measures can help improve citizens’ security both in reality and perception. However, the authorities must ensure that a public good does not become a vehicle for private intrusion.

There is substantial global evidence suggesting that CCTV systems in public spaces help deter certain crimes. Some systems, particularly those on highways and at intersections, have also proved effective in detecting traffic violations such as speeding and running red lights, leading to tickets being issued to offenders.

CONCERNS RAISED

However, advances in these technologies, especially those capable of reading licence plates, have raised concerns even among law-abiding citizens in many jurisdictions. In the United States, Flock Safety has faced much of this criticism.

Flock’s cameras, linked to central databases nationwide, have appeared in cities and towns across the United States, reading residents’ licence plates as they travel. That alone is not the problem. The concern lies in the possibility that under a weak regulatory regime, someone could access the database and track the movements of ordinary citizens in real time despite those individuals neither having committed nor being suspected of committing crimes.

For example, in October 2023, the police chief of Sedgwick, Kansas, resigned after an investigation found that he had used his ex-girlfriend’s licence plate number 164 times between June and October that year to track her movements through Flock’s cameras and database. He also searched for her new boyfriend’s licence plate 64 times.

In response to this and similar incidents, a movement known as “deFlocking” has been gaining traction in the United States. The Gleaner is not opposed to the technology. It simply advocates for its responsible use.

Similarly, the DPA was designed to ensure the responsible management of personal information. However, it includes exemptions to facilitate law enforcement. The law also grants the minister the authority, if he “considers it necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security”, to issue certificates exempting personal data from data-protection standards.

Take it to a judge.