2002 Survey on Public Place Surveillance

In previous years the PCPD has commissioned the Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong to conduct research on privacy-related issues among samples of data users and data subjects. The findings of these surveys have been informative regarding perceptions towards personal data privacy and related issues. However, with the concept of personal data privacy well entrenched within the community, the PCPD decided to undertake a survey with a more specific focus in 2002.

In early 2002, the Hong Kong Police revealed its plan to install CCTV cameras in Lan Kwai Fong in order to assist in crowd management and crime prevention. The announcement resulted in expressions of concern both within the community and the Legislative Council. There are particular concerns about the apparent lack of regulation of the use of CCTV cameras, the retention and use of videotaped records and the potential intrusion upon privacy in places to which the public have largely unrestricted access.

At the time of the Police announcement the PCPD was unable to uncover any investigation or independent reporting into community perceptions towards the use of surveillance cameras in public places. It was considered timely and beneficial to commission a research survey in this area. As a follow-up action, the PCPD commissioned the Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong to conduct the survey between June and September 2002.

The survey was designed to gain insights into public attitudes towards the use of surveillance cameras in public places. Its objective was to better understand the strength of public convictions held towards surveillance and the circumstances under which the practice is deemed acceptable, or otherwise. It also identified issues that the public found sensitive, such as the location of cameras and the purpose of surveillance. A number of real-time monitoring and recorded monitoring situations were also examined. The survey was conducted in three stages.

Focus Group Discussions. Focus group discussions were held to investigate six situations in which customers and/or employees were subject to surveillance cameras. The situations examined were retail shop employees, car park users, MTR/KCR commuters, Lan Kwai Fong customers and employees, housing estate residents and tertiary level students. In addition, tourists from Mainland China and Britain were interviewed to establish the extent to which surveillance cameras might influence perceptions towards public safety which, in turn, may impact upon an individual's choice of holiday destination.

Household Telephone Survey. This stage of the research involved a survey of 1,103 domestic households. The telephone-administered questionnaire was designed around concepts and issues that came to light in focus group discussions. The intention here was to present respondents with a series of situations with which they could readily identify. For each situation respondents were asked about the use of surveillance cameras, with and without recording, and the retention period for tape records. At the same time a degree of variety was given to those situations in order to develop an understanding of more specific camera applications, which, in the view of the general public, necessitated the application of some form of restrictions.

Operators of Surveillance Cameras. The final stage of the research involved in-depth interviews with six operators of surveillance cameras covering the focus group situations. The interviews explored issues such as the purpose and operation of cameras, taping and control of access to tapes, notification of recording, benefits of cameras, privacy safeguards and attitudes towards the PCPD formulating a code of practice or, alternatively, the government licensing the use of surveillance cameras in public places.

Nearly all focus group respondents supported the use of surveillance cameras in public places for crime prevention, public safety, crowd control and security purposes. The exception was the use of such cameras in taxis or at public beaches. There were also diverse views regarding their use in Lan Kwai Fong. Some considered their use to be justified during festivals or special occasions. However, the majority of respondents agreed that cameras should not be used to monitor specific individuals, in particular where the data were to be used by government agencies. There was also considerable concern regarding the control of the cameras' use and access to the recorded contents. There was overwhelming support both for the public to be notified if cameras were being used and for the development of guidelines to avoid potential abuse.

The telephone survey found that the majority of respondents supported the use of surveillance cameras with recording capabilities over live monitoring for crime prevention purposes. This suggests that camera recording would be essential if the monitoring were to achieve the stated purpose. The highest level of support was for car parks (51% of respondents indicated full justification for the prevention of crime and damage), followed by train platforms (39%), and shops (38%). There was almost unanimous agreement that the recorded tapes should be kept for at least 24 hours, with strong support for tapes being retained for at least one week.

In terms of control measures, respondents were presented with seven possible means of controlling the use of surveillance cameras and asked to evaluate each one on a five-point scale from totally unnecessary to essential. The most popular option was tape security requirements with 71% of respondents considering it essential. This was followed by: public notification when using cameras (57% essential), restricted access to the tapes in the case of crime (56% essential), a PCPD code of conduct (43% essential), banning the use of cameras in some situations (43% essential), banning surveillance targeted at individuals (41% essential) and licensing the use of cameras (29% essential).

In summary, the survey results reflect general support for surveillance cameras in public places under certain circumstances. Most people agree that, while both security and privacy issues are important considerations, crime prevention and detection justify the use of surveillance cameras at specific locations, such as high crime areas or where there is a high risk of accidents during festive times. There is general support for camera recording, notably in situations where security concerns are paramount or where there is a demonstrated need to use cameras in the fight against crime.

Respondents believe that privacy concerns should be addressed in surveillance, even though they may be of a lesser priority than issues such as security and crime prevention. However, there is a clear need to regulate the use and purpose of surveillance cameras in terms of accessing recorded information, public notification, tape security and the retention period for tape records. There is also a need for supervision, in the form of a code of practice drawn up by the PCPD, to ensure proper controls and to avoid potential abuse. Finally, respondents do not see an immediate need to set up licensing requirements for the installation of surveillance cameras, which suggests that drawing up guidelines or a code of practice may be viewed as providing greater privacy assurance to the community.

The survey has provided valuable insights into community views towards surveillance cameras. The PCPD will continue to monitor the use of surveillance cameras in public places and discuss with relevant parties protection of the personal data privacy rights of individuals.