Why Proportionality Matters

In an age where cameras are everywhere, from shop ceilings to street corners, the question isn’t whether we can watch, but whether we should and to what extent.

CCTV systems can deter crime, enhance safety, and provide reassurance to communities. Yet, they also have a profound capacity to intrude on privacy, capturing not just wrongdoing but the daily movements of ordinary people who have done nothing wrong. In New Zealand, the key principle guiding responsible CCTV use is proportionality being that the level of surveillance must be in reasonable balance with the privacy intrusion it causes.

Images capable of identifying people count as personal information. This means that whoever operates a CCTV system, whether a business, a local council, or a charity must comply with the Privacy Act’s Information Privacy Principles.

Proportionality is not a technical rule; it is a moral and social one. It asks whether the benefits of surveillance truly outweigh its costs to personal freedom. A camera placed at the entrance of a building to deter vandalism might be proportionate, because it serves a clear and limited security purpose. But constant monitoring of people inside a workplace, in shared residential areas, or near homes can easily cross the line into unreasonable intrusion. Even in public places, people have an expectation of what privacy scholars call “contextual integrity” whereby they may accept being seen by passers-by, but not being recorded, stored, and analysed indefinitely.

Unchecked surveillance carries wider social risks. It normalises the feeling of being watched, subtly shaping how people behave and express themselves. Over time, this can erode the sense of trust that makes communities feel free and open. There is also the risk of “function creep,” when footage collected for one purpose such as security is later used for another, like monitoring staff performance or analysing customer behaviour. Without clear limits and transparency, surveillance can easily become something it was never meant to be.

Proportional CCTV use begins long before a camera is switched on. It starts with asking whether surveillance is truly necessary to solve a problem, or whether less invasive measures like better lighting, staff presence, or community engagement might work instead. If cameras are installed, their placement, field of view, and even image resolution should be chosen to minimise intrusion. For instance, cameras should avoid capturing private spaces such as neighbouring properties or areas where people have a high expectation of privacy. Audio recording should generally be avoided, since it greatly increases intrusiveness.

Transparency is equally important. People should know when and why they are being filmed, through clear signage or notices. The footage should be stored securely, accessible only to those with a genuine need to see it and deleted once it is no longer required. Organisations should regularly review whether their CCTV systems remain justified, whether privacy impacts have changed, and whether technology improvements have made less intrusive options possible.

At its heart, proportionality is about trust. When surveillance is done with care, openness, and respect for individual rights, people are more likely to accept it as part of a safe and functioning society. When it becomes excessive, secretive, or misused, it undermines that trust and risks turning public spaces into zones of quiet suspicion.

CCTV is not inherently bad, it is a tool, and like all tools, its ethical weight depends on how it is used. In New Zealand, our privacy laws, cultural values, and sense of fairness provide a strong foundation for using it wisely. The goal should never be to watch as much as possible, but to watch only as much as necessary. The measure of good surveillance is not how much it sees, but how well it respects the people it watches.