Privacy and the Vancouver Olympics: Games over, cameras going away

The 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics marked the first time the games would be held on the North American continent in the post-9/11 world of enhanced security considerations after the terrorist attacks against the United States. With the games came increased concerns about protecting the international athletes and visitors who would flock to Vancouver to take part in the Olympics, and with those concerns came the need to balance personal privacy with personal safety. Enter the federal and provincial privacy commissioners, who worked with Olympic officials and the city of Vancouver to ensure that such security measures as the addition of some 900 security cameras to the Olympic venues would be removed once the games concluded. In the months leading up to the games, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (OIPC) issued a release detailing the efforts to balance security and privacy concerns during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Keeping attendees safe was to be of “paramount importance,“ the commissioners had announced, but it would also be crucial that officials respect the “privacy of individuals and the integrity of their personal information—before, during, and after the games.“ As Assistant Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier put it prior to the games, privacy and security “are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are mutually reinforcing. And that is the message we are working to convey to security officials at the Olympics.” “Throughout the 18 months of planning, our project manager provided updates and completed a privacy impact assessment for the provincial privacy commissioner as required under provincial privacy laws,“ Vancouver Director of Emergency Management Kevin Wallinger told the

, explaining that the city’s CCTV system “was developed with the full understanding that it would be a temporary system which would only be used during the Olympics.” With the games concluded, it appears that the goal of balancing the issues of privacy and security has been attained. Nicole Baer of the OPC confirmed that separate video surveillance cameras were installed by the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and the city of Vancouver. The ISU, which reported to the federal privacy commissioner, “has advised us that approximately 900 surveillance cameras that were installed under contract as part of the perimeter intrusion detection system…are in the process of beingremoved,“ she told the

following the conclusion of the games. R. Kyle Friesen, the ISU’s chief privacy officer, explained that the RCMP, which was responsible for “retention and disposal of personal information collected by the perimeter intrusion detection system cameras and existing venue security systems that protected Olympic and Paralympic security zones during the games“ had guidelines in place for addressing the collection, use, and disposal of the images. “I can confirm that the approximately 900 surveillance cameras that were part of the V2010 Integrated Security Unit contract associated to the perimeter intrusion detection system at competition and non-competition Winter Olympic and Paralympic venues are in the process of being removed as part of the service contract,“ ISU Director of Public Affairs and Media Relations Dawn Roberts confirmed in a statement to the

. Roberts explained that in the small number of instances where cameras captured activities that could be related to possible criminal offenses, “images have been retained for criminal investigative purposes by the police of local jurisdiction.” Wallinger, meanwhile, explained that Vancouver’s emergency management office’s system, used in downtown areas during the games, was completely unrelated to systems put in place by the ISU. “In the spring of 2009, Vancouver City Council approved the use of a temporary CCTV system to assist with enhanced situational awareness for increased public safety in the city’s entertainment district, pedestrianised corridors, and two celebration sites,“ Wallinger told the

, with the system put into place this past January and becoming operational on Feb. 2. The system’s features included a state-of-the-art control room that was staffed continuously while the games were underway during the months of February and March. In instances where a potential incident was detected, personally identifiable information would only be collected should follow-up be required, Wallinger noted, and images were stored for no more than 21 days, a time period well within the guidelines of privacy laws, which allow for up to 30 days in general and up to one year if required as part of an investigation. “On completion of the Paralympic Games, the cameras, servers, and related infrastructure were shut down, with the cameras physically removed by April 2,“ Wallinger said. Neither the city of Vancouver nor the nation can be called a stranger to large-scale events, but in the post-9/11 world, Baer agreed that the OPC may begin looking at guidelines to address privacy and security at such events in the future. “We do, in fact, already have the seeds of such guidelines because, in relation to the Olympics, we outlined a framework that ought to guide the ISU in its security measures before, during, and after the games,“ she said. The framework focuses on striking an appropriate balance between privacy and security, based on Canada’s Privacy Act, other laws, and a series of Supreme Court decisions that show, first and foremost, that, “The inherent right to privacy can only give way to another equally compelling public good, such as public safety, and only under strict conditions“ and that any invasion of privacy must be “reasonable and proportionate.” Jim Burrows of BC’s OIPC agreed that the importance of balancing security and privacy throughout the planning process was evidenced in discussions with the public safety organizations and privacy offices involved. In the end, he said, “It certainly turned out the way we would have liked it to.“