By Laura Townsend
[email protected]
The latest restroom-camera controversy involving camera use in the
Iowa City Public Library has created quite the stir among people
concerned about their privacy. While these concerns are certainly
valid, I do not see the cameras as a threat but rather as protection.
Before people point fingers at our beloved library, they might want toconsider why the cameras were installed in the first place.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa has recently approached
the library with a letter asking officials to remove the cameras or
else place clear signs indicating their presence to “provide a full
and accurate warning to patrons.” While there is such a warning sign
outside of the restrooms, some library patrons are concerned that the
sign can be misinterpreted as meaning that the cameras are placed
outside the restrooms, not inside. If the library does not choose to
take the cameras down because of the controversy, the ACLU hopes
officials will put signs inside the restrooms to avoid any confusion.
The controversy brings into question whether a government facility
should consider protection of privacy a more critical matter than
protection from theft, vandalism, and assault. Because only the common
areas of the restrooms are visible to the cameras, patrons are still
granted privacy in the stalls. Library Director Susan Craig said, “The
cameras have been quite invaluable since they were installed”; the
footage has led to arrests in numerous cases.
For many, however, the common areas are considered safe spaces in
which patrons can be granted privacy if the need arises. The ACLU was
granted access to open records and found “the cameras have recorded
activity that people should be able to keep private” including patrons
changing clothes, a woman “sponging herself,” and a man zipping his
pants. It is possible that they were under the impression they were in
privacy when performing these actions.
While the concerns about violations of privacy are certainly valid
and need to be heard, concerned people should be mindful that the
cameras serve an important role: protection from possible criminal
activity. I believe obvious signs should certainly be placed in the
restrooms, but a total removal of cameras could be dangerous to the
library and its patrons. The *Iowa City Press-Citizen* writes that
according to Craig, the cameras have led to arrests involving assault.
Cameras could not only lead to arrests but also prevent assaults from
occurring if a perpetrator knows that he or she is on camera. The
cameras are meant for protection.
As long as clear signs are installed in the restrooms, I am
comfortable with the cameras remaining. Cameras are meant to protect
against other violations and make the spaces safe places. As long as
patrons are properly informed, they can choose how to use the common
areas in a way that is comfortable for them.
Otherwise, patrons may use the restrooms falsely believing that they
have entered private spaces, in which case they may rightly feel as
though their privacy has been violated. The library must replace the
small signs outside the restrooms in order for the cameras to stay,
but the cameras are certainly valuable to our safety in the Public
Library.