Since the unraveling of the human genome, many studies have been conducted in an effort to deduce what genes may be linked to what disorders or the propensity to certain ailments based on an individual’s DNA.  These questions have been moved from the science lab or doctor’s office to an individual in front of a computer pondering which at-home genetic test may be most beneficial to them. 

A plethora of at-home tests are now available over the internet, testing everything from your unborn child’s sex, to determining what your risk may be for developing breast cancer to how you metabolize certain medications.  It is all the more frightening to know that the majority of these tests are not regulated by a government body, nor do they come with the genetic counseling one may need to completely understand the results.  With no regulation, these companies could become the next biggest scam like so many others we find in our spam folders on a daily basis. 

It is disturbing to ponder what endemic panic may accompany the results of such testing.  The questions that arise, are in essence, age old – are our destinies pre-determined or can we control our fate?  If the results of a test proclaim the individual has a high risk of developing a certain type of cancer, would that individual live their life differently?  Would a parent keep a record of their child’s DNA for identification purposes in case they are abducted? Would a mother who desperately wanted a son have an abortion based on a test result from an internet company claiming her unborn child was a female? 

The critics run rampant with these topics, exuding the unease that individuals will be tricked out of money by fear and propaganda that these tests will solve health questions and confirm the sex of your child.  Without government regulation, there is no way to guarantee the quality of the tests conducted or even if they are conducted in a laboratory setting.  With every new breakthrough, the market is flooded with the latest genetic kit that will allow testing for a new disease and there is no method of telling which companies are legitimate.  It is hard to prove the genetic test results are accurate with out submitting yourself to the same testing at your doctor’s office.  With a test for the confirmation of the sex of an unborn child, the results at least are easy to monitor.  If you have a boy and you were supposed to have a girl, you will know that you were taken advantage of.  That, however, is of little comfort.  

There are lawsuits against companies in the US that have wrongly confirmed the sex of fetuses.  One suit notes over one hundred women are suing a specific company due to the faulty test results. It is also prevalent in the media that banking DNA for your family is alarmist in nature – expecting someone to go missing and DNA being needed. The experts tend to agree and urge caution against purchasing what could turn into a personal Pandora’s Box - for once you open it, you may not like what you find.

The use of video surveillance in public spaces has been an extremely prevalent issue over the last few years especially with the escalating crime rates in the Greater Toronto Area. Ministry officials and policing services have expressed increasing support in the installation of surveillance technology such as close-circuit television (CCTV) in public spaces such as parks, streets, and major intersections. They hope that the use of video technology would not only prevent crime by reminding criminals that they are under constant supervision but also promote a sense of universal security and safety. Cameras have therefore been installed in high-crime areas such as Jane and Finch, the Toronto Entertainment District, and specific areas in Scarborough.  It has recently led to the arrests of three individuals responsible for the deaths of Bly Markis, 33, who was brutally strangled in a stairwell, Nick Brown, 21, who was stabbed on the subway and Gerard Telesford, 44, who was beaten to death in the vicinity of a residential building.  

Alternatively, it seems that for some, it is undeniably difficult to ignore that ‘Big Brother is Watching’ sensibility which public surveillance evokes. Although Torontonians are yet to emulate an Orwellian protest against totalitarian notions of state surveillance, many chose to overlook the sense of safety which public surveillance may provide.  They perceive it instead as an infringement on an individual’s democratic right to privacy, and emphasize that one should not have to compromise their individual autonomy for potential safety. They suggest that there is a considerable difference of being in public and being under surveillance in a public space. The latter may allow individuals to submit themselves to racial scrutiny and can evoke suspicion through association. Standing on a street corner, or offering someone directions may lead to the profiling of an innocent bystander. Many also argue against public surveillance by accentuating that one’s consent to be videotaped is only implied and not explicit. Ministry officials who advocate public surveillance have responded by arguing that according to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), explicit consent is not necessary. Once the individual chooses to enter a public place then implicit consent is automatically enforced.  

Furthermore, recent statistics have shown that cameras have been effective only upon initial installation. They seem to deter crime and offer a sense of safety only initially before the public becomes desensitized to their presence. They also seem to deter crime in specific areas, only to displace them in other locations. An additional argument against the use of video surveillance is that the majority of video footage is not monitored on a 24-hour basis and therefore immediate incident response is not offered. Video surveillance can therefore make one feel safe in a monitored parking garage, but it will not prevent them from being assaulted. It can only potentially deter criminals or assist in finding the suspect once the incident as occurred.  

Currently, there are no laws or legislations against the privacy issues which public surveillance prompts.  However, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has responded to these concerns by publishing a set of guidelines that is expected to be applied when installing public surveillance technology. The guidelines insist that only a minimum amount of personal information should be collected for a specific purpose. This means that cameras should only be operated for limited periods of time and they must not be positioned to capture individuals who are not targeted. It also suggests that surveillance must always corroborate with an individuals expectation of privacy, and a result they must not be placed in locations where there is a heightened expectation of privacy, such as a public washroom or a changing room. Moreover, footage obtained through public surveillance must only be used for the purpose in which it was intended. Therefore, if video is used in a parking garage to track auto theft and vandalism, it cannot be used to track the activities of individuals and tenants within the building. Lastly, the public must always be informed that surveillance is taking place by placing viewable signage before the individual enters the premises.  

Living in the era of technology, it seems that being videotaped in public is not as shocking as it once was. Big Brother is watching at the ATM machine, the subway platform, the streets of Toronto, the Gardiner Expressway, the list seems endless. Although Orwell’s notions of the invasiveness of state surveillance seems to inflict an underlying sense of fear, it is important to take into consideration that video surveillance is meant to serve as a safety mechanism for the public’s well being. Perhaps soon, further guidelines and legislation will be enforced to balance the notions of safety verses privacy.