Humans today are being watched like never before and pervasive surveillance has become a routinised part of life. Even when no one is actually looking at us from the other side, the digital footprint of our activities and the most intimate aspects of our existence is ever-increasing and constantly beyond our control. This fact, however, is something that most Indians are not only fully aware of, but a majority see nothing wrong with it, a recent study by Common Cause and the Lokniti team of the Centre for Study of Developing Societies – the Status of Policing in India Report 2023: Surveillance and the Question of Privacy (SPIR 2023) reveals.
Whenever the topic of surveillance is broached, even amongst the critics, there is often an underlying sense of necessity on the one hand and inevitability on the other. Necessity, for the prevention and investigation of crime, ensuring national security and enabling proper governance. And inevitability, because many believe that whether we like it or not, surveillance technology is going to become an irrefutable part of our existence, as, for instance, believed by two-thirds of Americans, according to a 2019 Pew Research Centre survey.
Looking at the first part of the argument, however, there is in fact little statistical evidence to suggest that surveillance technologies such as CCTVs have any role in preventing crime. SPIR includes a broad analysis of the correlation between the number of CCTVs available with the police and the rate of murder, auto/motor theft and total cognizable crimes over a period of five years. It finds that there is no statistically significant relationship between the variables. In other words, the number of CCTV cameras available to the police does not appear to impact the rate of these crimes.
While this was a broad analysis conducted using publicly available data from police sources, the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) and the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), several other studies have come out with mixed findings. For instance, while a Newark-based study finds CCTV has a modest impact on the deterrence of auto theft but not on other types of crimes (Piza, 2018), a meta-analysis of studies conducted by the same University reveals a significant impact of CCTVs on crime, particularly in locations such as car parks and residential areas (Piza et al, 2019). On the other hand, an analysis by Livemint reveals no correlation between CCTV camera density and crime index across 15 Indian cities.
Despite this backdrop of scarce scientific data to show the effectiveness of CCTVs, at least insofar as crime prevention and deterrence are concerned, the general perception of the public and even some domain experts lean heavily in favour of the continued use of such technologies.
Mass surveillance: ethics, legality and perceptions
Mass surveillance, as the name suggests, is the indiscriminate surveillance of a large group of people using technologies such as surveillance cameras or CCTVs, drones, mass interception of communication, the use of facial recognition technology for all persons in public places, etc. While many argue that most of these technologies, by virtue of being placed in public places, do not impinge upon people’s right to privacy, others believe that the demarcation of the private as against public spaces is not so clean.
For instance, in European countries, it is illegal to put CCTV cameras that film people on a public path, and compulsory to declare the installation of CCTV cameras in public areas to the concerned authorities in countries such as Belgium. Further, video surveillance by the government in EU countries is also limited to specifically identified security problems, ensuring data minimisation. The law further ensures the timely and automatic deletion of footage.
In contrast, in India, aside from the declaration of privacy as a fundamental right in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India judgment by the Supreme Court, there is scarce legislation governing surveillance, and none on data protection. Thus, even the most ubiquitous forms of mass surveillance such as CCTV cameras go largely ungoverned.
Further, as revealed in SPIR 2023, despite the vast CCTV coverage in some Indian cities, just a small fraction of the CCTV cameras are actually available with the police, including cameras in private and government establishments that are available to the police. For instance, in Delhi, 10,218 cameras were available with the police as on January 2021, according to BPRD. However, in contrast, according to data from Comparitech (a private research website), there were a total of 436,600 CCTV cameras in Delhi as of July 2022. Even as the data from comparable years is not available, the vast contrast in the actual number of CCTV cameras and those available with the police is evident from this comparison. The use of CCTVs for crime prevention or investigation becomes even more questionable in view of the fact that law enforcement in the country has limited access to the footage from these cameras.
What the data does point to is the widening technological gap that might contribute to differential access to safety and justice between different classes, castes and educational groups. SPIR 2023 includes a survey with nearly 9,779 people across 12 Indian states and UTs, and its findings suggest that while half of the respondents (51%) said that CCTVs have been installed in their households or colonies, high-income groups are far more likely to have CCTV coverage in their residential areas, compared to slums and poor localities. In contrast, however, the government is three times more likely to install CCTV cameras in slums or poor localities (31%) than in high-income residential locations (9%). This is despite the fact that the poor are the least likely to support the installation of CCTV at their residential or work locations, compared to all other income groups.
What this suggests is that while the rich may have much higher access to surveillance technology such as CCTVs which they use for their own safety and security, it is the poor who are the most distrustful of such technology. Yet, the government is much more likely to install these surveillance cameras in poor localities than in rich ones. For the rich thus, while such technology may signify improved safety, for the poor it might be the exact opposite and may be seen as an extension of the state surveillance on them, rather than for them.
This variation in perception, however, does not take away from the overall high level of support for the installation of CCTV cameras in public places amongst all of the respondents – more than 80% supported CCTV installation in public places such as markets, schools, parks, public transport, societies, hospitals, etc. Almost paradoxically, this support exists despite half the respondents agreeing that CCTVs in public places carry the risk of illegal mass surveillance, and about 50% agreeing that it can be used against women.
A person installs CCTV cameras in Delhi. Representative image. Photo: PTI/Vijay Verma
Political surveillance: Pegasus and beyond
The most nefarious form of surveillance, however, is the unchecked targeted surveillance by the state and its agencies, as expressed in a Focused-Group Discussion (FGD) by domain experts including retired police officers, senior journalists, civil society activists, academics and those who were themselves targeted by the Pegasus spyware. There was a general consensus amongst the FGD participants that targeted surveillance is being used as a tool to curb dissent and track those perceived as a threat to the government, which has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression in the country.
The general public, on the other hand, exhibited altogether contrary opinions on the issue. While many attested to the aforementioned chilling effect on freedom of speech – 65% were scared of posting their political or social opinions online for fear of legal action – but at the same time, nearly one out of five persons also supported targeted mobile surveillance of bureaucrats, journalists lawyers, etc. using spyware similar to Pegasus.
Despite the fact that people’s awareness of issues such as the Pegasus scandal and the right to privacy judgement was extremely limited (25% of people had heard of the Pegasus scandal and 16% of people had heard of the right to privacy judgement) the majority, troublingly, held opinions contrary to established legal principles such as the right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression. For instance, 52% strongly favoured the use of CCTV cameras for controlling protests, though the poor, Sikhs and Muslims were least likely to support it.
It is apparent that the social and political values of the Indian masses are often more conservative than the constitutional values that aim to regulate their lives. While this is often understood as lack of awareness amongst the larger public, that may be too simplistic an explanation for that. For instance, as seen above, it is not just the lack of awareness about the dangers of surveillance technologies such as CCTVs and mobile surveillance that contribute to disturbing trends of high support for the use of such technologies. Large proportions held the opinion that political parties snoop on citizens for winning elections (32%), and private companies and NGOs misuse data to influence elections (23%), yet this did not bring down the support for surveillance by the government targeting people’s right to expression.
This is, in fact, consistent with previous SPIR data which suggests high levels of support for police violence (SPIR 2018), extending even as far as support for the police killing those who belong to Naxalite or insurgent groups, rather than giving them a legal trial (19% people believed so, SPIR 2020-21 Volume I). There is, evidently, little that manages to shock the Indian populace and on the contrary, intolerance is deeply ingrained in our very existence. It is only when we scratch under the surface and seek the opinions of the disadvantaged and excluded that the differences in opinion start emerging.
Radhika Jha is the lead researcher of the Status of Policing in India Report series.
[Note: The ‘Status of Policing in India Report 2023: Surveillance and the Question of Policing’ (SPIR 2023) is based on an analysis of publicly available official data, a focused-group discussion with domain experts, an analysis of news coverage on surveillance and a survey with the general public across 12 Indian states and UTs.]
