I’m pretty sure (though not positive – perhaps someone can confirm/deny) that buses have cameras, similar to Taxis.

If that’s the case, I’m sure Translink and/or the police would publish videos of serious and/or repeat offenders if they really needed the public’s help identifying them.

I don’t think encouraging vigilante justice is a road we should make a point of starting to go down.

We are living in the age of big brother, so anything is possible and I do think it can help solve crimes but also cause problems because everyone is connected to the net one way or another.

I think you should worry about real crime on transit like violence, vandalism, and theft, not fare evasion for which Translink doesn’t even get the fine money.

Maybe those people do have a pass or fare, you don’t know, and it’s a silly thing to play citizen-cop over. Not even the drivers have the authority to deal with fare evaders.

To be open: citizen-surveillance like this often leaves an incredibly bad taste in my mouth when its directed at truly insignificant acts such as fare jumping (I get a murder in progress or something, but really – a fare!?).

I’ll start with this: cameras don’t have much of an effect on stopping crime save in car parks. SCAN regularly points this out, as do individuals who are involved with empirical analyses of CCTV and camera data. Of course, there are sometimes perceptions of safety when you’re ‘watched’ by a camera, but the UK shows us that CCTV either moves crime to non-surveyed areas or people just get used to them and break the law regardless.

I’ll also point out that in Daniel Solove’s book ‘The Future of Reputation’ he addresses the very real issues that arise when citizens decide to use cell phone camera to ‘catch criminals’. While he draws on particularly sensational issues (e.g. a woman who broke the law on the subway who’s dog pooped, and she didn’t clean it up, which effectively destroyed her life as the photo went viral and other citizens regularly harassed her and everyone she knew) the general point is this: most people do not have a genuine awareness of how data that they capture for law and order purposes will be used. What do you do when a university student (or anyone else, for that matter) has an emergency demanding they get home, transit is their only solution, and by broadcasting the photo they loose a scholarship that included a provision of ‘no criminal activity at all’? A fare jump that may have been entirely out of character could have cost the student his future, or at least jeopardized it.

In terms of the police, they’re already massively, massively increasing surveillance operations throughout BC, and Canada in general. Just look at the plethora of new snoop cams along the ferries, along with mind-numbingly stupid expenditures on policing for the Games as examples of the extension of policing surveillance and passing of laws that arguably infringe on constitutional rights for ‘security’ purposes. Personally, I find such extensions of surveillance incredibly offensive; I see no legitimate reason for the state to be involved in regular surveillance of regular actions, and I hold the same stance towards my fellow citizens. Of course, I approach privacy from the point of contextual integrity, as laid out by Helen Nissenbaum – Canadian law recognizes that you can take pictures of people in public, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Moreover, given the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s general willingness to bow to public safety concerns there isn’t a terribly strong public defender of constitutional rights along privacy lines. Frank Work, Alberta’s privacy commissioner, is about the best we have in the country, and his budget and jurisdiction are massively limited.

This said, while I’m not a lawyer, I would suggest that you be mindful of the potential for liable if you falsely accused someone of a crime AND broadcast it to the world at large, especially given that you couldn’t (given your background in social media) claim that you didn’t know the potential consequences. Check with a lawyer before running around accusing people of crimes.

@ Jen – agreed, I am not looking to become (nor to encourage anyone to become) a vigilante. I am just pondering.

@ Kimm – agreed, it can *potentially* help solve problems

@ Greg – completely, utterly agreed. I’m more concerned about real crimes (e.g. vandalism, violence). That’s where I would feel compelled to at least document it in some way. Fare evasion isn’t really something that makes my blood boil.

@ Chris – both my parents are lawyers, so I’ve talked to them about this. I haven’t yet run around accusing anyone (I’m just pondering the consequences, and publicly in a forum, where not only it is read but it’s actually broadly read). It’s just a question that runs in my head, I figure that there is some potential for social media to help prevent crime. But I understand the surveillance risks/problems/concerns.

Also, I’m not a scholar of surveillance/privacy, that’s why I asked you for your opinion when it comes to environmental policy, I can give a much more informed opinion and give. The field of internet law is relatively new to me. In this case, I’m asking more questions than I am making any statements.

Raul, if I boarded a bus through the back doors (which I don’t do unless it’s the 99) and had a ticket (which I always do) and you published a photo of me suggesting that maybe, just maybe, I was a fare evader…

ooooh… I’d have you publishing apologies and retractions for the rest of the year.

I think it’s a really dangerous game to get into and leaves you very open to false accusations, libel, legal repercussions etc etc etc

@ Jon – I know, and that is why I said I had been tempted yet never had done it. But you only responded to one aspect of my question (e.g. the libel implications, violating civil liberties, falsely accusing someone of a purported crime).

The larger question I asked is – can social media help prevent or solve crimes? That’s the one I want answered!

Can it prevent/stop/resolve crimes? Sure, we see this all the time with police gaining access to various social networking environments to then use that information as part of their intelligence gathering. I think the question you’re asking is this;

“Should we, as individuals (i.e. no members of the state) use social media to prevent and/or stop what we perceive as crime, or should we leave such investigatory powers to more qualified groups and individuals”

If you think a crime is being committed, don’t Twitpic; call crime stoppers or the police, and take advice from there. Citizens ‘taking the initiative’ can be very powerful, and very, very harmful while undermining notions of anonymity/privacy in public places.

While the sentiment is good, I think the example is one that doesn’t work well because there are too many variables. Now … if there is a serious crime being committed and you call police and take a picture, you’re doing something.

If you catch a driver talking on his cell phone, while driving, without a headset (as I did), that’s something to report.

I concur, we are under a tremendous amount of surveillance now. As citizens we do have a responsibility to report crimes, but we also have the responsibility to use our judgment in the process. Maybe the larger question is … what harm to the greater good does that action you’re witnessing do?

Fare jumping? Not much. Dog poop? Naw. Assault? Theft? Vandalism? Yeah, all of those harm the greater good. Turning to social media? Always dangerous. It makes us judge and jury. We then are saying to the public… “This person is guilty of the crime I accuse…”, whereas being able to send the picture, video, etc directly to police preserves our right to fair trial and right to privacy.

Social media could help if there is a serial pickpocket and you can catch a snap, share with police and they ask for the community’s help. The problem with social media (and its strength) is that it can spread information widely quickly. Before, as the student in an emergency example, someone can say “the driver said it was okay…” that person is branded a “criminal” (which is wrong because it’s a misdemeanor, therefore no criminal record).

With great power comes great responsibility…

Big Brother is definitely watching you, especially when a lot of people have access to iPhones nowadays. I wouldn’t really bother reporting fare jumping and minor violations but if it’s related to public safety such as assault, theft, vandalism, I think social media is a great way to report such crimes. I’m glad to hear that police is using social media as a way to solve potential crimes.

This is not (contrary to assumptions) a post about Big Brother.

It’s a post about Little Brother.

Phones are just one platform for the citizen responsibility known as “bearing witness” and doing so certainly does deter crime. Even crime by figures of authority.

You may or may not have heard of one of the very first instances of crime report via cellphone, but it happened in Vancouver. A man was trying to talk a little boy into getting into his car, the boy photographed the license plate, and sent it to the VPD, who then arrested the driver.

This is a GOOD thing. Especially since it backs up testimony in “it’s his word vs hers” kinds of cases.

Also, there IS something to be said for giving people the reputation they deserve. Even Dog Shit Girl.

Excellent term “little brother”.

Citizen crime reporting shouldn’t be within the realm of social media, instead, law enforcement should provide ways to report to them directly.

Highly relevant to this conversation: as of a couple weeks ago, you can text message a tip to the transit police: http://www.transitpolice.bc.ca/en/About-Us/News-and-Events/2010/January/Transit-Police-and-Crime-Stoppers-Partner-On-Text-Tips-To-Solve-Crime.aspx

I think it’s an excellent topic for discussion — you can see from here that there are a lot of opinions so be great debate. There are a lot of angles, from the perspective of if/how law enforcement is using social media to the role of citizens. Ironically the most high profile case of a citizen recording an act of violence was the YouTube video of the airport tasering.