Surveillance Cameras in Israeli public spaces – a security measure?

WHAT IS THE ISSUE PROMPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS?

Privacy: a right that everyone values and prioritizes. We have curtains on our windows and passwords on our emails, because a breach or infringement on our privacy is one of the most invasive acts that can occur. Personal safety is also a right that we stress the importance of daily. So, when these two values clash in a legislative dispute surrounding surveillance cameras, which value do you prioritize over the other? Specifically, how and when is the use of surveillance cameras in Israel justified?

        A paper by Ro’i Goldschmidt (in Hebrew), addressing the Knesset Science and Technology committee, thoroughly addresses surveillance cameras in Israeli. This new policy is the direct result of a series of vandalism acts, which the implementation of cameras may help reduce, or, once they occur, help catch the perpetrator. However, is a safer neighborhood, on average, worth the infringement on personal privacy? 

WHAT ARE THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS REGARDING SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS?

        The primary legislation, the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981, mandates that surveillance must be conducted for specific, legitimate purposes such as crime prevention or traffic management, and any broader use requires explicit justification. To ensure transparency, areas under surveillance must have clear signage indicating the presence of cameras, their purpose, and contact details for further information. This transparency helps build public trust and ensures compliance with privacy laws. Data collected from surveillance must be securely protected, with access restricted to authorized personnel, incorporating physical and technical safeguards to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.

        Furthermore, the extent of surveillance must be proportionate to the security needs, using the minimum number of cameras and avoiding residential and private areas unless necessary and legally justified. Special protections are in place for public gatherings, with surveillance generally prohibited at peaceful assemblies to protect the right to freedom of assembly. During such events, cameras are required to be visibly deactivated to assure participants of their privacy. 

ARE THERE ANY POSSIBILITIES FOR CONTROLLED IMPLEMENTATION?

        On the one hand, it may seem like the Knesset and the committee are taking an “easy way out” approach to this situation, and it can be viewed by many as overkill. Is 24/7 camera recording a proportionate response to graffiti vandalism, a crime that doesn’t necessarily risk the public’s physical safety? A nightly neighborhood watch or hired security guard to drive around neighborhoods seems like a more logical response, even though it would factor in more effort and money. Still, implementing non-robotic surveillance throughout neighborhoods is a common practice worldwide.

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC DANGERS OF THE CONTROLLED IMPLEMENTATION OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS?

       However, a night watch only factored in vandalism, whereas a surveillance system would cover a broader range of crime types. For instance, visible security cameras have led to a 47% reduction in crime rates in specific scenarios in South Korea ​(Optics Mag). For example, a camera could alert someone of a mugging and help identify the perpetrator to the police. Additionally, a medical emergency caught on a surveillance camera in real-time may potentially save someone’s life. 

THE OVERALL CONS OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN PUBLIC SPACES

        The overall fear of “privacy infringement” is not what we know but rather what we don’t know. Every day, there seems to be a new data leak or a major social media company has been using “hidden cookies” (data to help pinpoint advertising) that the public is blind to. In the case of implementing surveillance cameras, the situation is relatively similar.

        In contrast, the known attributes are harmless; what we don’t know occurs with the photographic data and can cause harm. While the government may seem like the significant entity to worry about in this case of unknown data usage, other entities may also be able to access the surveillance cameras. Hackers have demonstrated the ability to eavesdrop through security cameras by capturing video in real-time through walls using sophisticated techniques. This type of vulnerability represents a significant and immediate threat to the security and privacy of individuals and organizations​. 

GUIDELINES OF IMPLEMENTATION 

        While strict guidelines seem harsh, specific rules and regulations are necessary when the government implements a new surveillance camera. It is imperative that surveillance camera alignments are proper during installments in order to “minimize the damage.” The surveillance cameras also must fall under the eavesdropping law regulations, which require them to record audio without consent; when it comes to these laws, there is a trust relationship between the civilians and the government that they will abide by them. However, sometimes, these rules and regulations may become a little blurry. For instance, the laws protecting surveillance in a public space and surveillance set up by a business owner are moot because the authorities have the right to access and search, according to the Israeli government website. 

FINAL THOUGHTS—CONCLUSION

        To conclude, while invasive, we believe surveillance technology is not “evil” and can be helpful in locations with high crime rates globally. However, in cases like Israel, where graffiti incidents happened, there are less intrusive measures that solve the issue and keep everyone happy and safe. The issue of privacy laws in Israel is one our law office dealt with for a while, and surveillance cameras in Israel are just one aspect of that issue.

        Putting the people first in any legislative or authoritative act is imperative, as that is what a proper democratic government should strive to do. Suppose it is the people’s overall belief that these cameras infringe on their rights. In that case, it is the government’s responsibility to adhere accordingly, and vice versa, if they deem them necessary for the betterment of the safety of Israel.

This article was written written with the help of Paralegal Asher Force.

 :  :

03-3724722

055-9781688

office@lawoffice.org.il