"The report concludes that, based on the applicable rules, [Montreal police] haven't demonstrated that the use of these security cameras was justified," states the document.

In short, between May and August 2004, when the project took place, police didn't respect basic rules of privacy. They did not justify the need to film 24 hours a day, but did so nonetheless; the posters informing the public of the filming were erroneous; the length of time for which the footage was to be preserved wasn't respected; one of the cameras was illegally aimed; and no documentation was provided to the CAI regarding the training of the concerned police staff, the report states.

However, Montreal police remain unfazed. Commander Johanne Paquin confirms that "the police department, obviously within respect of the rules set by the Commission, has the intention of continuing a video surveillance project in 2005." Not only do they plan to re-establish Robot-Cam in its original location, they will then consider "with a wide perspective the possibility of implanting it on a larger basis," says Paquin.

"To have the Commission state clearly that the minimum norms of [the cameras'] use were not respected, for sure it confirms our worries," says Bernard Saint-Jacques, community organizer with the Réseau d'aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes. He emphasizes that none of the CAI's recommendations have any legal weight yet. "We remain worried about the cameras' use on the dealers, but also on all marginalized people that inhabit that public space, like street youth and the homeless."

Though Paquin points to a 33 per cent reduction in crime in that sector as a result of the project, Saint-Jacques reminds us that crime has been diminishing in the area since 2001, and that "many people are revealing how unclear it is whether Project Robot-Cam was indeed a success, since it seems its main effect was to push the drug dealers three blocks eastward."

 
 

		Write your comment on this article!

Robots     The article says that the crime rate has been going down since 2001, why not put the money into researching why it's been going down and do more of that? I feel really iffy about cameras watching us, and I don't think we're anywhere near being like 1984, I just question why who they are using these cameras for. Surveilling the area isn't going to prevent a crime, it will catch it on tape, but will it be used consistently? that is the question. Will certain groups be targeted? It's nice to see that we at least have a branch out there that is keeping an eye on the people watching us...in the US they would just change the law to fit their agenda, when that starts happening here then we are truly in 1984.
Josee Lacroix	{14 votes}	April 20th, 2005
cctv     in london, cctv cameras film your every move about the street. the first time i noticed the signs about i felt like i was in 1984. it is unnerving to know that a man in a little booth somewhere might catch you picking out your wedgie. but at the same time, it could discourage drug dealers from making their transactions on the street corner. problem is, if it is only used on one strip as in montreal, the problem just moves a couple streets over. the same thing happened in some areas when the cops started cracking down on street prostitutes, just forcing them into another area. now parents in some more residential areas are freaking out because of the syringes they find in their kids playgrounds. i'm not sure the cameras are the solution. i'll admit that sometimes i am uncomfortable in the berri area, knowing what does happen around there... but really.. will a camera make it safer? i mean... were the cameras working there when that 17 year old kid grabbed an elderly woman's purse, and she fell down the stairs? and if someone decides to mug me... it will still take forever for the cops to arrive. i think i'd prefer it if the cops simply increased their presence... but then again.. with video evidence criminal charges are more likely to stick. i think i liked the idea better when they were simply recording, but could only have access to the film in the event a crime had actually been committed.
Erica Wallace	{27 votes}	April 16th, 2005
Cam we do this ?     Oh no.. it's 1984 !!! Not likely I think. Why *I* am against this, is not due to "privacy" issues at all, but because I think it won't work. This this so-called "surveillance" leads people in the area into a false sense of security because they feel they must be safe because they're of course.. being monitored by the authorities. Anyone who's ever worked in a store with these cameras knows the truth, chances are unlikely that the monitored areas are being very closely watched - not "live" anyways. Chances are, this surveillance feed will only really be useful "after the fact" - after some incident occurs and some evidence of whatever act is caught on tape - to be used in court and/or examining crime scenes. Of course, most non-criminals will feel that this constant monitoring will keep them safe from criminal predators. Not so - because most of the predators will know the simple truth, that the monitoring won't stop the intended crime - it'll just view it and not much more. So we end up with a situation where people feel invulereable, when the crminals know the sad truth that they're really not, and that's where the problems occur. Compounding this problem, is the fact that the program only works if the camera's are functioning 100% of the time - and ask 9 out of 10 depanneur clerks the truth - and they'll tell you horror stories about being held-up while supposedly on-camera - only to find out later that there was no tape in--or the machine was busted.
Rob Postuma	{32 votes}	April 14th, 2005
News flash!     Well, well, well, didn't exactly need to be a prophet to see this verdict coming, eh? The Montreal police's pet 'Big Brother' project is struck down for being the bogus and dubious exercise we all thought it was and here's the punchline to this sad joke--the police department *still* intends to give their Orwellian vision of remote public safety a go in 2005. This, despite the fact that they failed to fully justify their actions, trampled on basic privacy and civil rights along the way and generally acted in a crocked and authoritarian manner. In other words, business as usual for them...except this time they got to use a funky camera. Kudos. No really, I'm truly proud that these are the people that we've entrusted with the public good. I've always wanted to live in a fascist state where my rights are afterthoughts to the powers that be's unchecked ambition to improve society, haven't you? <<>> This thing was a bust, this thing was a hoax. Does anybody really believe that Project Robot-Cam actually did any longterm good other than allowing the boys in blue to test out a new way in which they can infringe upon our rights in the name of protecting us. Sorry but I think more honest cops doing more actual policework would accomplish just about the same as 'Big Brother' here. Watch, the second a camera catches the police doing something wrong/illegal they're going to cry bloody burder and hide behind the Brotherhood until the public gets bored with whatever scandal du jour and the guilty parties get recycled back into the system.
Pedro Eggers	{44 votes}	April 14th, 2005
Nothing to hide     A camera on St. Catherine street? I didn't even notice but now that I know it's there, I'll start getting images of the book 1984 into my head. Oh my! Are we turning into a police state where the Government controls everything including the media (as if they already don't do that). The answer is no. Despite what some people might think about the robot camera, it is not an invasion of privacy. For one thing St. Catherine's street is a public street owned by the city so they can place a camera to monitor activities if they pleased. If it was a truly public street of the city we wouldn't have to pay for parking. The second reason why it is acceptable, at least for me, is that I don't plan to do anything illegal in a public street, except for the occasional jay walking. So I don't mind if the police see me. Finally I've walked on the streets of St. Catherine's on a friday night and I wouldn't mind a little surveillance if it reduces crime. I saw peddlers selling marijuana, drunken punks yell at me trying to cause a fight, even a couple of months ago we had a stabbing outside the Peel pub. While the cameras probably wouldn't prevent this stabbing (it was done in rage), it'll help the police catch the criminal who did it. This will stop them from committing more crimes or at least make them pay. It'll also act a deterrent for other criminals because they know the police will have evidence of them committing a crime. I believe the Robot Cam breaks no laws of privacy or human rights. If they started placing cameras in our homes then I'll be yelling 1984, but for this no. They have these cameras in London and other cities and the results have been positive. As a (mostly) law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear from being filmed. Others though might think twice before committing crimes. I'd like to think that there isn't a criminal element in our citizens but that would be naive and since there is, I agree with using the Robot Cam for surveillance.
Alexander Yu	{23 votes}	April 14th, 2005
Send in the clowns.     eye in the sky, watching your every move. reality television made into a 24-hour daily run of fresh, unedited, material showing us what we have become. trapped and violated by big brother, some would be eager to say, invoking the spirit of prophet man george orwell whose animal farm and 1984 represents glimpses into the eye of the beast called 'government'. however, there does exist another aspect that shouldn't be brushed aside in rhetoric complaints and complaining: the cultural obsession with movie stars and famous people on television has become offered to all of us. cameras. cameras. cameras everywhere, offering all of us to become movie stars and famous people types as we walk and talk along the streets of this fair and most beautiful city. put on your best, smile at the camera, and take centre stage. haven't we all grown tired and restless with shows like the apprentice, american idol, oprah and dr. phil, and the opportunity head shots of parasitic politicians? why not create our own dramas and surreal moments, before the curious eye of the robo-cams? we know they want to watch, and we know they too are bored and restless. they want to see more than just crime: the beautiful faces, the sensual bodies; that long embrace, that yearning kiss; how his hand caresses her, how her body pushes deeply into his body and embrace. why are we wasting our time watching others do for us what we can do for ourselves on the television screen, and the movie screens? why not live our lives in perpetual glamour, like the commericals? the same commericals that seduces our willful senses to stop what we are doing, and run down to tim horton's for coffee and soup. or buy molson beer, and your life will become one endless adventure of beautiful women wanting you. or buy oil of olay, and turn your skin into the skin of a woman twenty years younger than you. embrace the robo-cams' presence, and live each moment deeper than the next and last moment. be your own star.
Gary Womac	{14 votes}	April 14th, 2005
Suprising but...     I am rather surprised that the robo-cam was not allowed. Richard Martineau in his blogue on the Voir site was recently talking about all this. He said that according to the book "50 facts that should change the world" (Icon Books), the average British resident is photographed 300 times a day! There are over 3 million cameras in the U.K. and 250 at the Waterloo metro station. So why the big fuss about one camera? Probably because according to research, it hasn't been proven that installing cameras actually reduces crime. According to the American Department of Justice, you can install thousands of cameras all over the place but who would be watching the cameras? Again, according to certain studies, after 20 minutes spent looking at a screen, our attention is diverted and you start to day-dream. And of course let's not mention that if cameras are allowed, what's next?
Natalie Dzepina	{8 votes}	April 14th, 2005
Sigh     The surveillance equipment was put up with the sole intent of _detering people from buying and selling marijuana_, so there isn't a logical argument anyone can make for condoning it's use; it's a complete waste of police resources. The notion that this somehow makes downtown montreal safer is LAUGHABLE. Maybe that could be a valid point if these exchanges were ending in bloodshed. Or if the substance being dealed was significantly more dangerous/destructive than the garbage they sell at depaneurs. This is just making it more difficult for ordinary people to get their hands on a substance that has no moral and logical merit in being outlawed. The problem lies within the absurdity of the law.
Jack Pack		May 4th, 2005
Don't say it's a bad idea!     I study in criminology, and I have been in contact with all that Robot-cam stuff. Don't forget that the idea behind that project is a very good, cheap and useful way to reduce crime in some «hot spots» (it worked in many european countries). The only problem is that the application of the project wasn't as good as the idea itself. How can you reduce crime if no one is looking at the images that the camera produces? The police services are also touched by budget limitations and there was not enough money in the bank to run the whole Robot-cam project. So, it ended up as half of a good project...
Rémi Boivin		April 26th, 2005
Preventative medicine or responsible treatment?     These cameras definitely do not offer a means of stopping crime as it occurs. Unless someone has developed a method of instantaneous transportation, that just isn't feasable. Besides, the level of surveillance required to make such a thing possible strikes me as very disconcerting. I can see, however, how this could work as a deterrent. It could discourage crime if those who would commit it had reason to think they would be caught. That's a good thing. It could also prevent future crime by ensuring that those who commit a crime are taken off the streets. I too am sensitive to privacy issues, but as long as certain guidelines are respected, I don't see a problem with this, much like I have no problems with security cameras at bank machines.The streets qualify as "in publec. I expect to be seen there. The disturbing thing about 1984 was that the government, like a malicious Santa Claus, saw you "everywhere"... Bernard Saint-Jacques' comment that "We remain worried about the cameras' use on the dealers", puzzles me, however. Does that mean what I think it means? Should I be worried about a negative impact on dealers' business? Somehow that doesnt bother me either....
Karen Sollazzo	{4 votes}	April 19th, 2005
Why bother?     I for one don't want cameras pointed at me all over town. I find it really short-sighted that many people don't seem to see the potential harm to our privacy. Are you really stupid enough to believe these cameras are really going to make a dent in crime? Perhaps purse snatching, or drunken brawls we'll see less of. But if two guys want to bash each other's heads in, be my guest. I mean it's not like the police don't know exactly who the real criminals are around town; they keep lists of them. A lot of crime gets ignored all together anyway. And besides, isn't taking an envelope from the bad guys much more lucrative for police officers. Now, I know most officers aren't crooked, and I'm sure the vast majority have a strong sense of justice...or injustice depending on how you look at it. I have only to say that technology is a double-edged sword, so use it wisely.
Paul Cordery	{4 votes}	April 16th, 2005
I don't know     Will these cameras work? Perhaps they would discourage illegal activity at the location of these cameras, but if there is no one there to actually monitor them, then there is definitely the possibility that people will feel a false sense of security. What if someone was being mugged in front of the camera? The person would be long gone before police arrived because someone would still have to call 911 for help. And we all know that most images from security cameras are not clear anyway. What we need is a combination of increased police patrols and cameras (that are actually being monitored)
Elizabeth Weldrick	{3 votes}	April 15th, 2005
Privacy vs Safety     I am all for surveillance cameras if the use of them is strictly for the prevention and reduction of criminal acts. However, the danger exists that the police, or anyone else who can intercept the cameras video feed, could use these cameras to further their own agendas. For example, cops could use the cameras to further involve themselves in neighbourhoods where crime is rampant but there may not be any crimes being committed at a specific time when the cops show up and therefore the cops could use their presence as a means to justify arresting anyone they think is suspicious. If criminals intercepted the video feed from these cameras then they could use them to copy someone's credit card numbers/debit card numbers & PINs and thus committing robbery and identity theft. The question is whether people's privacy outweighs people's safety.
Basil James	{2 votes}	April 15th, 2005
I want Big Brother watching     What do people have to hide? These cameras would be used to protect the public, not to keep tabs on who Joe Doe is cheating on his wife with, or which peep show John Smith goes to! If my girlfriend, or great grandmother, is walking alone at night, they deserve to be protected! The police can't be everywhere at once. This is a big city, and crime lurks in the shadows. If criminals know they are being watched, they will think twice before acting. People will be protected! Isn't that worth it?
Eric Wilson	{2 votes}	April 15th, 2005
Surveillance of Public Areas     Out in the open tourists take pictures and videos all the time with few restrictions. This does not bother law abiding citizens. Only criminals would object to this. Likewise having surveillance cameras outside would better ensure the safety of the average citizen. When crimes are committed this would be captured on tape making it easier to capture the criminals. You also see cameras indoors in Metro Stations, convenience stores and universities. When crime can happen to anyone at anytime it is reassuring to have an extra pair of eyes watching over us. Criminals will often think twice before deciding to act.
Stephen Talko	{3 votes}	April 14th, 2005
1984 anyone?     What a bunch of bastards. As if I didn't mistrust them already they just had to dig a deeper hole for themselves. Giving the police of this more power to spy on us is not the solution, if anything it's a sign that we really need to look at what's wrong with their tactics and policies.
Vladimir Joseph	{1 vote}	April 16th, 2005
Right view     I think we need to look at the country of England to see how well camera technology has served the people. England uses remote controlled video cameras to dispatch emergency responders and or police when they view public problems arising. After all if you are not doing anything wrong than whats wrong with others viewing you?
Renessa Cabrera	{7 votes}	April 14th, 2005

Write your comment! please follow these guidelines

Information requested in blue will remain confidential   [privacy policy] Please indicate your real first and last names.

First name :

Last name :

Your email :

Confirm your email :

Title of your comment (max. 150 characters)   Your comment (max. 2000 characters)  characters remaining       LIMIT PER PERSON : one comment per article per member. Thank you. Your comment will be read by our approval team and, if it is approved, will be posted on the website within 24 hours. It could also be published, along with your name, in the printed version of Hour magazine and on any of our partner websites. In order to present the highest quality of comments, Hour reserves the right to refuse certain submissions. Any plagiarism will entail the entire removal of the member’s profile. Hour is not responsible for the opinions expressed by the members.