The Persona affair: Are CCTV cameras about privacy or consent?

One of the top beauty parlours of Bangladesh, Persona is in the spotlight and a spot of bother too. There has been an allegation that CCTV cameras were recording how the beautiful ladies of Dhaka were making themselves more beautiful in the spa. A certain doctor's wife protested and now the matter has been referred to the police and many who visit or know of such places are seriously offended.

Kaniz Almas, the owner has however contested this, saying that the CCTV cameras are for the security and will not be taken down as they cover only the doors of the room and not much else.

Debate is on.

* * *

But first this is how Dhaka's spa consumers are feeling:

"You go to a spa to relax and do stuff that are very private…like taking a body massage in shanghai, etc! And if I know that the security guards are/or can watch it then I will definitely not go to that place…and most importantly I would need to know where I am taking off my clothes… I need to know if that place has CCTV cameras, the information which Persona refused its customer till the news was leaked…! Here we are not talking about people watching me getting my eyebrows plucked but taking body massage or getting my arms waxed wearing nothing or just my bikini! This is a serious infringement of privacy!"

* * *

Kaniz Almas' position is that the CCTV cameras protect the workers as there may be accusations of theft by those working there. Apparently, there were some complaints and this is a defensive act on their part. So far so good. These are Almas' rights and should be exercised. But where do the rights of the client begin?

It is simple. The client has to be told that CCTV cameras are in operation and if after that they still want to utilise the services there will be no problem. Doesn't it appear simple enough? It does but why didn't it happen?

It is partly because the owners of Persona probably never had an idea that they were accountable to anyone including the clients. They probably thought after they had a spot of trouble that they would protect themselves by installing CCTV cameras and it never entered their head that prior consent or announcement was necessary.

But why blame Kaniz Almas? It is not about privacy; it is about power and its accountability.

* * *

The issue is not about denial of privacy. Everyone has a right to get waxed, a shanghai massage or whatever in full privacy of the spa and I hope that issue is settled. I am all for privacy but I also think that what with the changes on, the issue of privacy is getting murky. Persona should explain itself but there is almost an inevitable air around it. After all CCTV cameras are more common in the developed world than ever before in the name of security. People have protested but the cameras haven't been brought down. While the private sector can be pushed, can anyone push the government?

* * *

Anyone travelling in the West and having to clear airports will know what privacy invasion now really mean. The physical search is so intimidating that people have said it was like being physically violated. Many have complained but little has happened. Now whole body scanners have been installed that see everything including the genitals which have made many human rights bodies very uneasy. However, that has not stopped the scanners being set up. It is happening in the name of security and the fall guy in all this is of course personal privacy.

* * *

Surveillance is a defensive act it is said because they are set up after a crime is committed. The hyper-security era has come after the end of the Cold War age and the beginning of the al-Qaeda era dominating global politics. Nowhere are people asked if they agree with the actions taken. Human rights theoreticians say that the difference between surveillance done in the past and done today is that it was so crude earlier that people knew they were being watched. Now they don't know because it is so sophisticated. One finds violations only after the act is over. Today, the Western world snoops on everyone but few know about it. In many ways privacy has died.

* * *

At the private level nothing is private and if one goes by media and the net it is not even a debate anymore. People either want to expose everything or they want to watch others expose everything. In fact it is a huge industry. People want to be famous and not private. Perhaps nothing is better indicative of this are TV reality shows and blogs.

On TV, reality shows already reign at the top and everything from birth, death, sickness, family fights, business and sexual affairs are on show for the world. Every channel has reality housewives where they do everything including carry on affairs in full view of everyone.

Blogs are the sphere, the new dimension. All kinds of blogs exist but thousands of blogs are devoted to the most private act and thought. Those describing sex parties by regular participants are very popular and so are those on affairs behind their spouse's back. Some even get caught.

But nothing says better that conventional notions of privacy are over than the sex videos produced by people themselves and put on the net which probably run into millions and has become the biggest threat to the porn industry in fact. Why pay for porn when the same stuff produced by ordinary people is available for free?

Many if not most young people now take photos of their sex partners and send it to each other by cellphone. Of course it sometimes causes distress such as when a clip of an ex-girlfriend was put by the unhappy boyfriend on a sex worker's site. Several star's phone have been hacked and pictures stolen and put on display for all. The net brings freedom and social contact but it also makes privacy more vulnerable.

Perhaps the intrusive nature of this phenomenon is exemplified by the Wikileaks phenomenon which has made even the world of official secrets obsolete.

* * *

But even in today's changing climate of the notions of privacy, in every case the common factor is consent. People can send their nude picture to their boyfriends but the person can't upload it for others to see unless permission is given and many do any way. Those who appear on the reality shows to bare all, tell all have also chosen to do so. Wikileaks are also not a permitted act and while many may applaud it, the essential fact of invasion remains.

In this age and times, consent is the only thing we can strive to hold on to, not privacy.

What Personna didn't do was ask their clients if they wanted those cameras or inform them that such cameras were installed. That's what the crux of the matter is. It is not privacy that was threatened but our right to withhold permission to be seen by another.

————————————–

Afsan Chowdhury is a Consulting Editor of bdnews24.com.