Difference Between Law Reform And Surveillance

LAW REFORM AND SURVEILLANCE

“Technology races ahead in leaps and bounds, yet the law drags its feet a long way behind”

INTRODUCTION Today’s society is heavily dependent on technology yet the speed of technological change is such that new legislation usually lags behind. One contemporary technology issue demonstrating both the law’s ability and inability to keep up with technological changes is surveillance. Surveillance can be defined as the monitoring of a person, place or object to obtain certain information or to control the behaviour of the subject of the surveillance. Surveillance technology has expanded considerably in recent years and includes the use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras, Internet usage tracking and the storage

They allow law enforcement to monitor communications between people suspected of crime, establish a person’s whereabouts and associates, predict or prevent criminal activity and Identify members of criminal organisations. The statute law which regulates the use of surveillance devices by federal law enforcement officers is the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 which has proven to be quite effective. It’s effectiveness is demonstrated when 5 teenage boys were arrested for plotting to run down and behead policemen on ANZAC Day in Melbourne. Surveillance officers watched Harun Causevic (one of the boys arrested) drive near the Shrine of Remembrance, looking closely at the weapon belts of uniformed police officers and circling a police car. With the awareness of his suspicious behaviour in mind, the police raided his home and found weapons and documents of the ANZAC Day services in Melbourne. In this case, this law has effectively ensured the safety of Australians by preventing the possible harm and/or death of many

The tracking of one’s activities, communication and whereabouts are seen as unnecessary by a large portion of society, regardless of it’s positive uses. For example, in 2009 government bus drivers in Sydney threatened industrial action over the use of CCTV on buses. Each bus is fitted with several cameras that are designed to deter misbehaviour on the bus. However, one camera is situated so that it points directly at the driver and record only them. The drivers complained that this camera was being used to ‘check up’ on them. They were afraid of being dismissed for taking too long on toilet breaks or for very minor matters. In response to public concerns about the use of CCTV technology, the NSW Government Policy Statement and Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of CCTV in Public Places was established. These guidelines stated that images and information obtained from CCTV should only be used for the purpose for which it is intended, therefore ensuring the concerned bus drivers. In this instance, the law had effectively attempted to keep up with the changes and problems by introducing statute law to protect employee’s