Open-Street Camera Surveillance and Governance in Canada Kevin Walby Department of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University

Home , Brockville

Rather than relying on an undifferentiated version of Michel Foucault's panopticon or conceptualizing surveillance as a straightforward top-down measure, this article contends that open-street closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance is generated from numerous and overlapping social positions. As a regulatory project within the overarching context of governance, open-street CCTV can be generated from above, from the middle, or from below. By "above," what is meant is some hierarchical political or administrative body. Business entrepreneurs constitute the "middle." By "from below," I mean that citizens themselves seek out regulatory measures for their oivn communities through moral entrepreneurship, often in collusion ivith local news media. But the inverse is also true: power moves through populations, and thus citizens' groups have the power to contest regulatory measures in their communities. I substantiate these theoretical claims with media, questionnaire, and interview data regarding the proliferation of open-street CCTV in Canada. Drawing from the sociologies of governance, of risk, and of critical media studies, and ojfering a more nuanced theoretical trajectory than theories that reproduce top-doivn conceptualizations of power, politics, and communication, I challenge the reigning theoretical models pertaining to open-street CCTV surveillance so as to demonstrate how regulation through camera surveillance can be generated from any number of social positions.

Au lieu de s'inspirer d'une variante non dijferenciee du panopticon de Michel Foucault ou de conceptualiser la surveillance comme simple mesure imposee par les instances superieures, Vauteur soutient que I'utilisation de la surveillance video dans les rues publiques estfondee sur diverses perspectives sociales qui se chevauchent les unes les autres. En tant que projet de controle s'inscrivant dans ce cadre plus global qu'est la gouvernance, la surveillance video dans les rues publiques peut etre declenchee par des intervenants en haut, au milieu ou en bas de la hierarchie societale. Ainsi, le haut de la hierarchie reprcsenterait une instance politique ou administrative ; le milieu serait occupe par des entrepreneurs; et le bas representerait des citoyens qui cher- cheraient des mesures de controle pour proteger leur collectivite enfaisant preuve d'entrepreneurship moral et en se liguant souvent avec les medias

© 2005 qCCj/RCCjP 656 Canadian lournal of Criminology and Criminai lustice October 2005 locaux d'information. Cependant, ce processus peut etre inverse: le pouvoir se diffuse a travers les populations, de sorte que des regroupements de citoyens possederaient le pouvoir de contester toute mesure de controle dans leur collectivite. Afin d'etayer ces postulats, iauteur exploite des donnees provenant de reportages, de questionnaires et d'entrevues sur la proliferation de la surveillance video dans les rues publiques du Canada. En puisant dans les sociologies de la gouvernance, du risque et de Vetude critique des medias, et en presentant une trajectoire theorique plus nuancee que celle des theories fon- dees sur des conceptualisations descendantes du pouvoir, de la politique et de la communication, Vauteur met en cause les modeles theoriques dominants concernant la surveillaiice video dans les rues publiques afin de demontrer que cette forme de controle peut s'exercer a partir de divers rangs de la hierarchie societale.

Introduction

Despite a recent surge in the nun:\ber of researchers interested in social monitoring as a topic of inquiry, an overarching theoretical or analytical perspective is not apparent in the area of surveillance studies. This is because of the eclectic mix of persons involved in researching surveillance processes. Political scientists tend to study policy issues concerning privacy; urban geographers examine the connection between social space and justice; communications theorists consider media processes; crin:\inologists focus on the relation between surveillance and crime control; and sociologists focus on inequality, order, change, and the individual-society relationship. Synthesizing these differing but interconnected literatures allows for a better understanding of surveillance processes. Only through integration can surveillance studies create appropriate theoretical models for discussing social monitoring practices.

Theoretical arguments need to be continually probed and tested in order to confirm that they correspond with empirical social conditions. In this article I ask whether surveillance theorists and criminologists are able to explain adequately the ascension of open-street closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance in Europe and North America. The surveillance literature tends to reproduce a top-down approach to the deployment of social monitoring practices. A more representative framework for analysis would propose that regulatory projects such as open-street CCTV can be generated, but also contested, from numerous social positions. I am interested in lifting the analysis of camera surveillance out of the sometimes empirically narrow and theoretically constricted field of criminology and into governance studies (see Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 657

O'Malley 1999). Following Tully (2001: 51), governance is defined as any coordinated form of human interaction that involves reciprocal, multiple, and overlapping relations of power and authority in which the actions of some agents guide the actions of others. Such courses of action entail long-term processes of normalization whereby formations of the self are realized through interaction with, or regulation of. Oth- ers. Governance is pozver acting through populations, in a field of conflict- ing interests and alliances, spread out to a multitude of sites, including local, regional, national, international, and global authorities but also corporations, charities, families, and the self. Past studies of regulatory projects, however, have overdetermined the role of the state (see Corri- gan and Sayer 1985; compare Valverde and Weir 1988), and one concern of this article is how regulatory projects are generated and contested from the level of civic governance. I therefore conclude that the theoretical underpinnings of surveillance studies are in a position to expose, but not fully explain, the rise of open-street CCTV surveillance, substantiating this claim with media, questionnaire, and interview data regarding the rise of open-street CCTV in Canada.

In the first of the article's four sections I offer a brief empirical sketch of the current extent of open-street CCTV proliferation in Canada. The second section evaluates the generally top-down approaches that have constituted surveillance studies in the past. Of importance here are George Orwell's cultural icon of Big Brother, Anthony Giddens's work on the state, and Michel Foucault's ubiquitous panopticon. I argue that these works are problematic because of the epistemological assump- tions they make regarding politics, power, and communication. In the third section I examine a growing body of literature that explains open-street CCTV as bound up in the politics of neo-liberalism, argu- ing that the "neo-liberalism as catch-all" approach, which purports to move beyond deterministic top-down models of surveillance, does not go far enough in terms of analysing the communicative processes that legitimate urban camera surveillance with the populace. Finally, viewing the intensification of surveillance measures as always intimately linked with the proliferation of mass forms of communication, I argue that, in terms of social positioning, projects that seek to regulate socially constructed perceptions of deviance and disorder can emerge from above, from the middle, or from the bottom. Pace governmental approaches that stress the futility of resisting productive power, 1 will also show, with Foucault, that resistance is the base of power and citizens can resist the implementation of regulatory projects in their communities. Regulation is always contested. I use the examples of London and Brockville, ON, to demonstrate these theses empirically. 658 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale octobre 2005

The ascension of open-street CCTV in Canada

Open-street CCTV is an assemblage of people, places, and technologies, where a person watches on TV a social field which is visualized by a video camera. Whereas the rise of open-street CCTV surveillance as a crime control tool in Fngland has been documented (see Fyfe and Ban- nister 1996; McCahill 2002; Norris 2003; Norris and Armstrong 1999; Williams and Johnstone 2000), the rise of open-street CCTV in Canada has been ignored in the burgeoning international literature on camera surveillance. The following section briefly details the rise of open-street CCTV in Canada in order to contextualize the arguments that follow.

Although Sherbooke, QC, became the first Canadian city to implement open-street CCTV in 1991, open-street CCTV gained popularity in the Canadian crime control culture circa the mid-1990s. In December 1996, Sudbury became the first Ontario city to implement an open-street CCTV camera. Former Sudbury chief of police Alex McCauley initi- ated the operative in response to concerns from business owners and seniors concerning safety in the downtown area (O'Flanagan 2002). Plans for a video monitoring program in Sudbury began in 1994 when Chief McCauley learned of the CityWatch Program in Glasgow, Scot- land: a monitoring system consisting of 32 cameras modelled on apparent success rates realized in Airdrie and Birmingham, UK (see Fyfe and Bannister 1996: 40-41). McGauley then visited Scotland in 1995 and worked out the plans for CCTV in Sudbury (see KPMG 2000: 9). The Sudbury project is aptly named Lion's Eye in the Sky, as the Lions Club was a major funding partner, although Northern Voice and Video (which donated the first camera), Sudbury Hydro, CP Rail, Sudbury Metro Centre, and Ontario Works have also been contribu- tors. Other municipal police services in Canada began to justify their own CCTV plans by pointing to the rumoured efficacy of Sudbury's cameras in reducing crime and "antisocial" behaviour. Based on the perceived successes of the Lions Eye in the Sky, other Canadian municipal police services - London, Hamilton, Toronto, Guelph, and Barrie, ON, plus Kelowna and Vancouver, BC - have promoted open-street CCTV surveillance to reduce crime, fear of crime, and "antisocial" behaviour. This evidence suggests that open-street CCTV initiatives in Canada are often based directly on initiatives in the United Kingdom or on other "successful" Canadian initiatives which are themselves based on U.K. camera monitoring schemas. Sudbury is the major node of entry for the ascension of open-street CCTV in Canada.

While often police are the agency whose impetus results in the imple- Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 659 mentation of open-street CCTV, sometimes the impetus comes from a different social position. CCTV went live in London, ON, on 9 Novem- ber 2001. Monitored by commissionaires at City Hall, cameras are stra- tegically placed at 16 corners in downtown London and have the ability to pan and zoom. Official objectives of the CCTV system are (1) to provide and maintain a safe environment downtown; (2) to deter crime and "antisocial" behaviour; (3) to increase economic activity downtown; anci (4) to improve the ability of police to react and respond to crinre and "antisocial" behaviour. However, the 16-camera operative is a citizens' initiative. The violent 1999 murder of Michael Goldie-Ryder resulted in the formation of Friends Against Senseless Endings (FASE), a moral entrepreneurial citizens' group against community violence that was instrumental in raising the necessary ftmds. In this instance, the citizen initiative preceded and informed police policy.'

In other instances, the configuration of agents, agencies, and problematization is completely different. In early May 2001, Centurion Security Services installed four CCTV cameras on the roof of a building in downtown Yellowknife, NWT, as part of a marketing demonstration. As a regulatory project, the urban CCTV operative in Yellowknife was controlled and maintained solely by a business interest, isolated from police or citizens' interests. In Vancouver, BC, pressure from the Van- couver Board of Trade regarding the drug and sex trades in the Down- town East Side prompted the Vancouver Police Department to propose a system of 23 fixed cameras and two mobile cameras known as the Neighbourhood Safety Watch Program. In response to the moralization and stigmatization of the sex and drug trades, a host of regulatory agencies accepted CCTV as a suitable strategy for urban crime control. The activities used to characterize the Downtown East Side of Vancou- ver are problematized and made subject to forrr\s of social hygiene. Civil society groups, such as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Asso- ciation (BCCLA) and the Carnegie Community Action Project, pro- tested and prevented the implementation of the Vancouver cameras.

Sometimes police and non-state agencies implement open-street CCTV operatives without or before public consultation. In January 2001, an 18-year-old figure skater named Alexandre Hamel was accosted in downtown Hamilton, ON, and robbed of $100, an incident that spawned a series of news stories in the Hamilton Spectator regarding the supposed endemic risks of the downtown core ("Crisis in the core" 2001). Shortly thereafter, the Hamilton Police Service joined forces with the Downtown Hamilton Business Improvement Area to pur- 660 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice October 2005 chase five cameras, intending to monitor the King Street East core of Hamilton, Public consultations were not held until a year after the pur- chase of the cameras. The Hamilton initiative was based largely on the purported success of the Sudbury Lion's Eye in the Sky CCTV system (Shea 2003). On 23 February 2001, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Kelowna, BC, jointly funded by the city and the Downtown Kelowna Association, implemented an open-street CCTV camera, placed above the Queensway bus loop near City Hall, for the purposes of monitoring the sex and drug trades in a downtown park (Ward 2002).- Because the RCMP is the only police service under the jurisdic- tion of the federal privacy commissioner, this operative gained national repute when, in 2003, federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski launched a constitutional challenge against it. Edmonton Police Services currently operates four open-street cameras located in the Whyte Avenue corridor of the city. The system was born out of a 2003 pilot program that ran for a trial period over the Canada Day weekend and the summer Fringe Festival. A disproportionate number of "calls for service," in addition to public fear stemming from the "notorious Whyte Avenue Canada Day riots of 2001" ("RCMP Com- missioner" 2004), lend the project legitimacy, and the Old Strathcona Business Association is supportive of the camera operative. The Hamilton, Kelowna, and Edmonton initiatives are primarily directed from above, but business entrepreneurship is still involved.

As Figure 1 indicates, upwards of 13 open-street camera systems are currently being operated across Canada, and many other agencies har- bour plans to implement such schemes. Sudbury, Hamilton, London, Toronto, Windsor, Peterborough, Sturgeon Falls, and Thessalon, ON; Edmonton, AB; Antigonish, NS; Kelowna, BC; and Montreal and Baie- Comeau, QC, operate open-street CCTV programs. Hull and Sher- brooke, QC; Winnipeg, MB; and Yellowknife, NWT, have had CCTV operatives in the past. Vancouver and Victoria, BC; Calgary, Leth- bridge, St. Albert, and Medicine Hat, AB; Saskatoon, SK; Dauphin and Selkirk, MB; Charlottetown, PEI; and Midland, Brockville, and Guelph, ON, are considering camera surveillance or have considered it in the past. Are surveillance theorists and criminologists able to explain adequately the rise of this so-called crime control tool?

Top-down theoretical approaches: Big Brother, totalitarianism, and panopticon

Surveillance is often conceived in terms of Big Brother (Orwell 1949/ 1984), totalitarianism (Giddens 1985), and the panopticon (Foucault Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 661

CCTV IN CANADA

2005

Current CCTV Operative Former or Proposed CGTV Operative

Figure I

1979). In his satirical novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell depicts a totalitarian, dystopic future in which the Oceania bloc is at constant war with imagined enemies. Big Brother, the ideological and symbolic embodiment of the centralized state apparatus, keeps tabs on the population through "telescreens" and concealed microphones: "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment" (Orwell 1949/1984: 158). This Orwellian approach firmly asserts that regulation is antithetical to emancipation and surveillance to human freedom. In the architecture of totalitarianism described by Orwell, power is centralized in the one-party state and communication is one-way, hierarchical, controlling.

Viewing surveillance as one of the four institutional dimensions of modernity, Giddens sees surveillance as expansive of the role of the state, both internally and externally, as state agencies track the actions of mobile citizens. Surveillance is top-down. As the surveillance capac- ities of the state expand, society moves closer to totalitarianism, because "[tjotalitarianism is, first of all, an extreme focusing of surveillance" (Giddens 1985: 303). The relationship of surveillance with policing "makes for other possibilities of political oppression, going back 662 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale octobre 2005 again to totalitarianism, but separable from it in their less immoderate forms" (309).

This narrow focus on the modern forms of politics and communication warrants critique for both authors. Writing about Orwell's vivid metaphors of Big Brotber, Lyon (2001: 110) asserts that "Giddens' sociologi- cal cautions about modern nation states and totalitarianism are bred in the same theoretical stable." The metaphors of Orwell and Giddens fail where the power to govern has been extended to non-state agencies and wbere media processes have become multifarious and frag- mented.

Orwell and Giddens see surveillance practices as primarily state exercises. Foucault's (1979) analysis of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon is also very modern, as it sees the power to watch, categorize, sort, and administer populations primarily in the hands of centralized institutions (prisons, factories, schools, army barracks, etc.). In Bentham's inspection house, jail cells on six stories would be positioned around a central observation deck, within which guards would be watching (or not) from behind blinded windows. The purpose was to render power "visible and unverifiable" so that inmates would know not when or if they were being n:ionitored and would constantly modify their behaviour to accord with institutional standards. Whereas violent forms of social control were bloody and had uncertain normalization effects on those being punished, the panopticon made discipline certain without bloodshed (Lyon 1991: 600).

The panopticon, for Foucauit, has the effect of inducing "in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power" (1979: 201), so as to make the actual exercise of power unnecessary. The process of watching takes place in enclosed spaces, where subject populations are forced under the gaze. This form of surveillance spreads out into the social body through the process of panopticism, formulating what Foucault calls the disciplinary society. A great invention of the bourgeoisie, disciplinary power comes to dis- place sovereign power (Foucault 1994:42). Inmates, students, and workers internalize the gaze, monitoring their own behaviour in relation to institutional norms. The historical transformation toward pan- opticisn:\ creates a social field of generalized surveillance (Foucault 1979: 209).

We have not seen the closure of agency implied in the disciplinary societ). Nor is the social field an enclosed space. Some have suggested Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 663 that we should reject the Foucauldian model and its explanation of power because it "refers to the past and is not concerned with the emer- gence of the postindustrial subject" (Lianos 2003: 413; original emphasis). There are key differences between prisons and city centres: namely, the enclosure of a penitentiary versus the agency anti mobility enjoyed by some lay persons in the open streetscape. None of this n:\eans that we should reject Foucault outright. Foucault's concept of panopticism reminds us of the presumptuous ambition of both state and non-state organizations to see and to know everything, and of the ways in which data collection and knowledge are entwined (Webster 1995: 69). With Foucauit, there is an epistemological break because his notion of power and surveillance is not simply top-down; the ultimate referent is not the totalitarian state. However, the establishment of open-street CCTV projects is not sufficiently captured by undifferentiated uses of the panopticon metaphor.

Neo-liberalism as catch-all

In attempting to overcome, or simply avoid, the popular top-down approaches already mentioned, a growing body of theoretical literature explains the rise of open-street CCTV as boimd up in the politics of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is part of the "New Right Project," which Knight (1998: 106) describes as an

economic philosophy that calls for cuts to government spending; elimina- tion or restriction of the regulatory role of government in areas such as investment, the environment, labour-management relations, and employ- ment conditions; privatization of state enterprises and assets; and the restructuring of core areas of the welfare state, such as health and edu- cation, to make them more cost sensitive and accountable to the logic of the marketplace.

Those who suggest that the rise of open-street CCTV can be explained through referencing neo-Iiberal social control argue that the "agents and agencies of the neo-Iiberal state are constructing the boundaries and possibilities of the new urban frontier while simultaneously engaging in a project of social control that will have far-reaching consequences for how we understand the meanings of public space, social justice, and the parameters of state power" (Coleman 2003: 21). This approach attempts to avoid the metanarrative of "the disciplinary society" or "the risk society" and instead tends to insert "the economy," or the neo-Iiberal state, into the slot traditionally occupied by the state in top-down approaches. 664 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice October 2005

The achievement of neo-Iiberal politics has been to stir up many anxieties in the city pertaining to urban space. As a response to the perception of disorder in city centres, urban governance is now increasingly structured around "public-private partnerships which prioritize economic development over and above social redistribution" (Coleman and Sim 1998: 30). Open-street CCTV is an attempt to re-image particular urban areas that are construed as disorderly. Business entrepreneurs market distinctive city images and invest in CCTV operatives so as to reconstruct deviant images and increase consumer confidence (Coleman and Sim 2000: 626). In studying the camera operative of Liv- erpool, U.K., Coleman and Sim (1998: 32) found that it was the city's image and its perceived impact on downtown business that consolidated support for CCW. Revitalization strategies become key, taking the form of responsibilization. According to McCahill (2002:21), responsibilization policies

are designed to offload the responsibility for risk management from cen- tra! government on to local state and non-state agencies and organizations, hence the increasing emphasis on public/private partnerships, inter-agency cooperation, inter-governmental forums and the rapid growth of non-elected government agencies.

Stakeholders are described as "investors" or "shareholders." The implementation of urban camera surveillance is contingent primarily on the expert knowledge and efficient technical solutions of entrepreneurial social control (Coleman and Sim 2000: 625; Coleman 2004). Urban camera surveillance, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, is seen as an extension of neo-Iiberal governance, one of many regulatory arms of a neo-Iiberal monster.

This approach should be given credit. First, these authors are concerned with the socio-political consequences of camera surveillance implementation for public space, core communities, and social justice issues pertaining to the move toward exclusionary forms of social control. Second, they place the ascension of open-street CCTV within the larger context of early-twenty-first-century political economy. The economy has coupled with the state in such a way that both state and business agents are involved in the generation of neo-Iiberal social control mechanisms.

Not without merit, the w^ork can also be criticized in several respects. First, these authors seen:i to draw their theoretical n^odels from phe- nomenal form rather than asking what communicative, sociocultural Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 665 influences precipitate the rise of urban CCTV. Second, this approach reproduces a top-down tactic by imposing a determinism the authors sought to avoid. These authors present neo-liberalism as the unstoppa- ble colonizer of all social processes. Hier (2004: 544) reiterates,

What remains is a conception of power through which hegemony operates as a deterministic articulation of social control based on the elite- driven material interests of consumerism and profitability. Not only does this serve to reproduce rather than move beyond the closure of human agency reminiscent of undifferentiated conceptions of the panopticon ... it also lends credence to the argument that surveillance functions primarily as a mechanism of elite repression v/ithout allowing for alternative explanatory possibilities.

These approaches fail to move beyond the closure of human agency implied in Foucault's panopticon and tend fo equate power with the exercising of elite desires through bourgeois rule. To base all explana- tions of open-street CCTV on the pervasiveness of neo-liberalism would be to reproduce the determinism so prevalent in popular depic- tions of surveillance. Strategies of governance cannot be understood in terms of the temporary hegemony of a particular ideology.

Because these authors draw on social control theory rather than on governance studies, their approach implies a regulated subject who is unable to exercise agency outside of the top-down parameters set by the omnipresent bloc of neo-liberalism. Here, power only flows one way. The "neo-liberalism as catch-all" approach does not show how regulation through camera surveillance can be generated from any number of social positions, or how acts of governance actually constitute the zones on which they act and the entities upon which they act (Rose 2000:145). The approach cannot account for the communicative processes involved in the problematization of urban space or urban residents. Nor can it account for agents of regulation acting upon themselves through the problematization of an Other's conduct. Regarding open-street CCTV, there remains the need to develop a critical theory that can account for the role of media, the role of emotional responses to deviance, and both top-down and bottom-up approaches.

A bottom-up approach? Synopticism and the viewer society

A recent innovation in surveillance and socio-legal theory has inverted the top-down approaches mentioned above, to the benefit of analytic clarity and validity. Mathiesen's (1997) article "The Viewer Society" 666 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale octobre 2005 has had a profound impact on surveillance studies. Mathiesen defines synoptic processes as those operating in situations where "a large number [of people] focuses on something ir\ con:imon which is con- densed" (1997: 219). The mass media influence enculturation, actively filtering and shaping the information that citizens consume.

An important locus of Mathiesen's work is his critique of Foucault. In the synopticon, the alliance of television with governmentality suc- ceeds in ascribing meaning to marginalized communities and the urban spaces they work/live in. The view^er society differs from the disciplinary society in that crime, not punishment, drives the diffusion of surveillant systems. A relationship between synoptic and panoptic processes dates back to the eighteenth century, the era when forms of mass media were developed - a crucial point of observation that Fou- cault overlooks. In synoptic news watching/reading, displays of socially constructed deviance

are purged of everything but the purely criminal - what was originally a smalt segment of the human being becomes the whole human being - whereupon the material is hurled back into the open society as stereo- types and panic-like, terrifying stories about individual cases. (Mathiesen 1997:231)

News must be titillating and presented as a commodity if it is to sell. Folk devils are depicted as an underclass in moralizing discourses and conceptualized as imagined communities of risk. This, in turn, estab- lishes the bases "for more resources to be given not only to the ex- pansion of prisons, but also to concealed panoptical surveillance" (Mathiesen 1997: 231), bolstering the move toward increased securiti- zation and tipping the scales toward prohibition and social hygiene.

Media are a site where political agendas and interests are consolidated (Knight 1998; Carroll and Ratner 1999) but also contested (Hier 2002; McRobbie 1994). Visualized behaviours can be transcribed into textual news media through the reporting processes of encoding, amplification, and decoding (Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, and Robert 1980). When an event is selected and reported on, it is constructed as "news" and thus encoded. It is only through such encoding practices that citizens come to know about the majority of events that occur in the social field. In the second stage of the reporting process, events are discur- sively amplified and decontextualized (Fairclough 1992) in such a way that they are "seen as emblematic and symptomatic of broader processes - moral decay, social malaise and the destruction of the social Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 667

fabric" (Hay 1995: 204). Finally, in the reception of the text, viewers/ readers actively decode messages through points of resonance that they find using their own perception (205). Viewers/readers are not simply passive receptacles of ideological manipulation. Through encoding, amplification, and decoding, news media can resonate ideologically with the public. It is in this sense that the media are implicated in the valuation of geospatial areas in the city and the generation of regulatory projects such as open-street CCTV.

Misinterpretations of Mathiesen's synopticon have been problematic. For instance, Bauman (1997, 2001) analytically privileges the inclusion- ary aspects of social monitoring over the exclusionary. A typical example of Bauman's consumer model, contrasting the dynamics of panoptic and synoptic processes, is his assertion that "panopticon forced people into the position where they could be watched ... Synop- ticon needs no coercion - it seduces people into watching" (1998: 52). Bauman, however, conflates the idea of "the many who watch the few" with that of "the many who watch celebrities," which reproduces the determinism in top-down approaches to communication, or\ly in the opposite direction. News/entertainment industries do quite regularly focus their attention on the rich and famous in "paparazzi-style photo- ops," but Bauman's analysis tends to see the synopticon as a democra- tizing impetus that turns the public gaze upon elites. Conversely, Mathiesen asserts correctly that, in most modern interactive media, "the basic conditions are increasingly and in the near future being set from above ... from the level of capital rather than from the level of participants, though they may still contain an illusion of two parties on an equal footing" (1997: 225). Mathiesen's synopticon is akin to reality TV shows such as Cops, Crimewatch UK, and America's Most Wanted that depict the underclass as a risk to be policed.

The theoretical importance of the synopticon is twofold. First, the justi- fication of surveillance initiatives is bound up in the social construction of knowledge pertaining to crime, moralized communities, and urban areas. Second, the theoretical importance of the synopticon concept lies in its assertion that regulatory strategies do not always find motivation in elites and government. Citizens do not simply submit to the will of the powerful, and the valuation of city spaces is an active process. Gaining the knowledge on which they base their decisions from media communications, citizens participate in the regulatory projects that govern them. The politics of open-street CCTV - the desire to collect, categorize, classify, sort, exclude - cannot be investi- gated analytically without an accompanying examination of the 668 Canadian lournal of Criminology and Criminal lustice October 2005 dynamics behind open-street CCTV implementation: the valuation of urban areas and problematized populations via communicative processes.

In response to a growing sense of insecurity in the city, in response to growing anxiety about "problem populations," the dichotomy between regulation and emancipation is obliterated. As Matthews (2002: 222) puts it, "emancipation collapses into regulation with the consequence that regulation is seen less as the opposite or negation of emancipation, but rather as one of the main routes through which emancipation might be achieved." The synoptic analytic suggests that media audience members are active participants in producing their own subjectivities and hints at the inverse relationship between surveillance and subject populations: that through communicative processes citizens actually participate in the processes that engender the rise of open-street CCTV.

Governance as an analytic framework for examining urban camera surveillance

Today, the commonality of anxiety creates solidarity (Beck 1992: 49) but also deep fissures (Robins 1995) in the social fabric. Managing their own anxieties and insecurities, subjects who are being governed and governing themselves enact a range of regulatory projects geared toward deterring real or imagined hazards (Isin 2004). Usually conceived as calculative or statistical approaches to dealing with the prob- ability of future harm, risk assessment and risk management are merging with moral politics and self/Other dialectics to create hybrid- ized forms of social anxiety that often intervene in processes of everyday life (Hier 2003). Some form of social anxiety, ranging from localized moralization to fear of crime to discourses of risk, is usually antecedent to the implementation of open-street CCTV operatives. These anxieties are rooted in negative perceptions of urban space and urban irihabitants.

Working within an analysis of moral governance. Hunt (1999) argues that regulation (practices of governing) can come from above, from the middle, and from below. State- or police-driven surveillance is the most pertinent example of regulation from above. Business associations or other non-state organizations constitute the middle position. Regula- tion arising from local hostility or grievances characterizes projects from below. Regulatory initiatives can arise spontaneously, in response to social subjectivities and public sentiment. Whilst problem- Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 669

atized populations sometimes do subvert demonization and regulatory projects via media and other conditions of possibility (Hier 2002; McRobbie 1994), it is necessary to separate business from moral entrepreneurs, or "the middle" from "below," because business entrepreneurs have more immediate access to institutional capital for initiating entrepreneurial projects vis-a-vis their positions in downtown business associations and businesses. Local media, too, are key players that regulatory agents and agencies use to communicate their beliefs. Local media are not, however, an elite instrument. Such media outlets have autonomy, make their own political decisions, and are sometimes directly involved with funding open-street CCTV. Television and newsprint press are businesses, and can therefore be conceptualized as an agency that fits in the middle of our analytic framework while serv- ing to communicate behavioural transgressions that intercede in top- down and bottom-up processes.

This analytical framework is ideal-typical. I am not asserting that any homogenous collectivities of this sort exist, and I acknowledge that the framework is useful only for heuristic purposes. In the messiness and fluidity of real life, it is possible that an agent or agency could concom- itantly occupy more than one position in the framework or change positions over time. For instance, a member of a downtown business association could at the same time exert pressure for CCTV from the middle and also be involved in a community-based drive for regulatory intervention. TV and newspaper media are implicated in each position. And, of course, a large multinational corporation exercises an abundance of power as compared to a local grocer. The "above, the middle, and below" menage a trois seemingly imports a vertical distri- bution of power into the mix, whereby "above" is still in a position of sanction, "below" is still in a position of subordination, and "the middle" is wedged awkwardly in between. This is the sovereigntist's approach to power, and not one I am anxious to reproduce. Thus, the ideal-type configuration is not meant to insinuate a verdict about the vigour with which any social position can pursue regulatory projects. The regulatory triad framework should not be interpreted hierarchi- cally, which would imply that those in "the highest" social position exert the most influence. My point is that community initiatives can precede and inspire state policing strategies and that is true of the rise of a few, but not all, open-street CCTV operatives in Canada.

The term "governance" refers to the overlapping complex of power relations whereby, through their actions, some try to shape or guide the actions of others. Government is only one practice of governance. 670 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale octobre 2005

Since Hobbes, state sovereignty has been the dominant form of government in which philosophers and social scientists have invested their explanatory energies. This does not mean that the complex of activities engaged in by the multitude of other agents and agencies has ceased to exist. Rather, as historians of governance show, practices of governance predate state sovereignty and will outlast it. Regulation is one of the actions agents and agencies can take in trying to guide or shape the actions of others, and surveillance is a type or technique of regulation. Moral panic, too, is a type of regulation, but much more fleeting and volatile than governance itself, which aims at long-term normalization of behaviour or ritualized civility.

From this perspective, state and local government are considered as one of the multiplicity of authorities, agencies, and agents seeking to shape conduct within their urban landscape. For Hunt (1999; 5), the focus on hierarchical state formations or elite social groups cannot adequately encompass the dynamics of regulatory projects. Governance issues are at all times negotiated by this multiplicity of agents and agencies.

In the case of open-street CCTV, sometimes the state and the police industry are the primary agents that agitate for the implementation of camera surveillance. At other times, urban camera surveillance is pre- scribed by business and/or moral entrepreneurs. Business and moral entrepreneurs are key regulatory agents involved in the diffusion of open-street CCTV. A business entrepreneur is any group or person asso- ciated with the capitalist economy that advocates the implementation of CCTV for its potential to decrease property crimes and the perception of disorder in downtown shopping areas. Noting again the ideal- type analytic paradigms employed, the regulatory projects pursued by business entrepreneurs can be conceptualized as coming from the middle. Business entrepreneurs are most often downtown business associations and are regularly involved in funding and promoting CCTV initiatives.

A moral entrepreneur is any collectivity or person that mobilizes around a moralized grievance or series of grievances in order to legitimize CCTV for its potential to increase safety in urban cores. Friends Against Senseless Endings in London, ON, is one such group; Mothers Against Drunk Driving is another. Regulatory projects pursued by moral entrepreneurs can be conceptualized as coming from below, because it is primarily the efforts of citizens mobilizing around a grievance that initiate the implementation of surveillance devices. These Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 671 ideal-type social positions are not static, and various regulatory agents can simultaneously work in concert from different positions to affect regulatory programs.

Deviance is construed as risky in media, is problematized as such (e.g., the health risks of drug and sex trades, the danger of random violence), and becomes moralized as a prelude to regulation. Homeless, youth, and minority populations who are visible in urban areas are portrayed as the "enemies of decency," the "enemies of community values," who need to be policed off the streets through civic sanitation by-laws, demonstrating the connection between visualization and regulation (Hermer 1997). Hunt (2003: 183) writes that regulatory projects "remain much the same as they were in the classical period of moral regulation at the end of the nineteenth century. Then and today moralization operates both to individualize the wrongdoer and to constitute deviant types so as to provide legitimations for interventions." The dif- ference is that "risk has moved from periphery to center in the analysis of contemporary social conditions. Perceptions of danger have sharp- ened, and in particular it is social dangers which captivate and alarm the public" (Lianos and Douglas 2000: 103). Open-street CCTV is bound up in a contemporary sociality based on the moralization of vulnerable communities and on risk aversion. Antecedent to the implementation of regulatory measures, an agent or agency from any social position can tap into this spectrum of social anxieties in an attempt to problematize certain populations.

Problematization occurs when some people contest the conduct, values, or culture of others and seek to impose rules upon another group. Problematization is fundamental to governance at a distance, as such valuations legitimate regulatory intervention. In the case of open-street CCTV, deviant populations may be constructed through risk-based problematization but also on the bases of grievance, harm, or morality. Risk-based problematization tends to induce corrective behaviours in the self, involving individual risk management decisions (e.g.. Should I walk downtow^n at night?). This is akin to O'Malley's (1996: 200) notion of prudentialism, whereby the prevention and management of crime risks becomes an individual responsibility. Grievance-based problematization, on the other hand, mobilizes collective regulatory response (business or moral entrepreneurship) against an Other in light of past events (e.g., random violence). Harm- and morality-based problematization are interrelated in that they rely on the moralization of some groups' behaviour as a basis for interceding to prevent harm to self and/or Other (e.g., drug/sex trade). The moral element in regu- 672 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice October 2005 lation involves a normative judgement that claims some conduct is intrinsically wrong. Open-street CCTV initiatives can be generated from numerous social positions that overlap and co-articulate a desire for regulation through camera surveillance vis-a-vis these anxiety discourses.

Random violence and the downtown London CCTV surveillance program

The implementation of London's Downtown Camera Project was generated from below and legitimated primarily through a focus on two violent events: the murders of Michael Goldie-Ryder and Jamie Will- iamson. Jamie Williamson, a young father engaged to be married, was stabbed to death in 1995 on a downtown street corner while waiting for his own father to drive him home. After Williamson's death, politicians and police promised changes to improve safety in downtown London, begimiing with a meeting that included a wide range of groups repre- senting people who live or work in the core (Sher 1999). Williamson, however, was largely forgotten until Goldie-Ryder's death four years later. Goldie-Ryder, 20 years old, was stabbed to death on 16 January 1999 in downtown London, at the corner of York and Richmond, attempting to protect two women. He died after a three-day hospital struggle. The injustice brought on a mass of media coverage that spoke of "a rash of killings" (Sher 1999). Police Chief Al Gramolini promised he would "clamp down on violence in the downtown core" (Herbert 1999). Orlando Zamprogna, then chair of London's Police Services board, commented on the "escalating situation," saying that "violence is especially frightening to women and the elderly - consumers whose spending could make the downtown a success," although city councillor Joe Swan immediately pointed out that the fear of downtown violence was more media hype than reality (Herbert 1999). Utilization of the discursive mechanism associating downtown with random violence - "the recent rash of downtown violence," "the series of killings" - lasted throughout the entire year of 1999 (Sher 1999; Beaubien 1999a).

The isolated event of the murder was quickly transformed into an imaginary set of risks afflicting the downtown core, including purse snatchings, bank heists, break-ins, and assaults. It was thought that fear of random violence could make downtown London a ghost town ("2003 Special Section" 2002: SP3). Risk perception pertaining to certain neighbourhoods in the city determines if and when CCTV operatives are implemented. By December 1999, the effect of media coverage was to legitimate a CCTV operative, at a cost of $235,000. Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 673

From the time of his murder to the anticipation leading up to the acti- vation of the cameras - a period of three years - Goldie-Ryder was repeatedly mentioned in media discourse (see "2001 Special Section" 2002: SP3; Herbert 2001; "The case for cameras" 2001; Seymour 2001; Daniszewski 2001; Miner 2001; Matyas 2001; Paraskevas 2001; "He didn't die" 2000; Goldie-Ryder 2000;'Beaubien 1999a, 1999b; Herbert 1999). The operative was approved also because of the strong role played by Deborah Goldie-Ryder, the victim's mother. During the city council's debate over whether the cost of the cameras could be justi- fied, she wrote, in the London Free Press's letter of the day, "this seems a small price to pay to help make our streets safer" (Goldie-Ryder 2000). Mobilizing around the grievance perpetrated against the Goldie- Ryders elicited sympathy from the public and from city councillors. The purpose of the CCTV cameras was to ease public concerns about downtown safety (Beaubien 1999b). In the end, Goldie-Ryer "did not die for nothing" ("He didn't die" 2000).

What makes the London initiative "from below," in terms of the analytic framework developed earlier, is that public support was essen- tially behind the camera system the entire time; the surveillance system is fundamentally a citizens' initiative. The death of Goldie- Ryder resulted in the formation of FASE, a moral entrepreneurial citizens' group against community violence that was instrumental in raising the necessary funds. The group was headed by Goldie-Ryder's mother and others who organized in response to the grievance against Goldie-Ryder to voice their concern about safety in the local media. Nearly 800 Londoners staged a waikathon, "walking against violence" in memory of Goldie-Ryder and raising $10,000 for the cause (Miner 2001). With the camera project focusing on the grief suffered, grievance- and risk-based problematization, and the potential for anyone to incur such criminal hazard in the downtown core, FASE raised $171,500 of the $235,000 needed by the summer of 2001; the largest donation received was an anonymous gift of $50,000. The London Downtown Business Association contributed $43,000 and the Bank of Nova Scotia, where Goldie-Ryder's mother worked, added $24,000. Six donors pledged $12,500 (the cost of one camera): the Hampton Group, the London Free Press, Ceeps & Barney's, Aboutown Transportation Ltd., the London Police Services board, and the University of Western Ontario board of governors (Matyas 2001). The original waikathon has turned into an annual event called the Goldie Ribbon Campaign. FASE lobbied the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to endorse a motion increasing criminal penalties for crimes committed with knives. Mem- bers of FASE have also made numerous visits to local high schools to 674 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice p6nale octobre 2005

Speak with youth about violence and their experience with the Goldie- Ryder event. In response to localized and isolated grievances, EASE played a larger role than either the state or businesses in mobilizing the implementation of London's 16-camera operative, although local businesses were active in funding the system.

The London case draws attention to the manner in which the media fuelled the grief brought on by two isolated incidents, projecting risk and anxiety onto a geospatial location in the city and intentionally or unintentionally aiding the implementation of CCTV operatives. The fact that the London free Press contributed financially to the moralized caniera campaign raises questions of conflict of interest, but it also demonstrates how local media are active constituents of regulatory projects rather than elite instruments. Because London's operative was driven primarily by citizen cooperation, it supports the argument that regulatory projects are sometimes generated from below.

Brockville, ON, and civic resistance

Power does move through populations, and thus citizens' groups have the power to implement regulatory measures in their communities. This collapses the old liberal dichotomy of emancipation as antithetical to regulation. But the inverse is also true: power moves through populations, and thus citizens' groups have the power to contest regulatory measures in their communities. The community of Brockville, ON, is important to examine because it is the only community in Canada ever to have dissolved an urban camera monitoring schema through civic resistance, demonstrating that regulatory projects sometimes fail.

The history of open-street CCTV in Brockville dates back to early 1999, when Police Chief Barry King presented a proposal to the city's Com- munity Services Committee. The proposal called for eight cameras, contingent on the police receiving a $158,000 grant from the province (Taylor 1999). The objective of the program was to deter crime, vandalism, and "rowdyism" on King Street in downtown Brockville. The initiative had the unanimous support of local companies (Taylor 1999), which indicates that CCTV in Brockville was generated from both the level of police and the level of business.

Days before the meeting between King and the city, city councillors and the mayor were inundated with phone calls from citizens who were deeply concerned with the implications of implementing camera monitoring in downtown Brockville. The night before the meeting, city Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 675 councillor Jason Baker fielded phone calls for two straight hours (Mon- aghan 1999). Mayor Ben Tekamp took 32 calls at home (Monaghan 1999). It was reported that citizens felt threatened by increasing levels of what they called "state surveillance." Their efforts were enough to secure a unanimous "no" vote against implementing the open-street CCTV initiative. Brockville sets a precedent for resisting open-street camera surveillance outside the parameters of privacy regulation. The levels of civic protest indicate that many citizens see open-street CCTV as a fallible technology that infringes unnecessarily on civil liberties.

In September 2003, the city of Brockville again considered implementing open-street CCTV in "their ongoing fight against vandalism and loitering" (Zajac 2003). As part of their new "zero-tolerance" policy against crime, Brockville Police Services hoped to use CCTV to respond to "an escalation in vandalisni" at the waterfront parks. The issue of vandalism dovetailed with fears about youths loitering downtown who "uttered obscenities" and "swarn:ied passers-by" (Zajac 2003). Peter Dunn, administrator of Brockville's Arts Centre, said that "rowdies" full of "reckless abandon" make King Street appear "out of control" and "unsafe" for women and children (Zajac 2003). The youth insurrection described by Dunn in the local newspaper was exaggerated. CCTV gains its legitimacy from purported levels of crime and fear of crime, and in the process vulnerable populations are moralized and constructed as imagined communities of risk - images to be policed that do not correspond to an empirical reality. Business and moral entrepreneurs employ discursive strategies through the media to create a particular view of youth crime that is deliberately biased against all youth and particularly youth of lower socio-economic position.

As Magnusson (1996: 290) points out, "urban zones are generally of much greater significance in people's lives than the boundaries between states." The Brockville data indicate that when regulation through open-street CCTV is presented as a response to socially constructed deviance, and this claim to deviance does not correspond, with the perception of deviance held by the citizenry, then the citizenry can mobilize in resistance against open-street CCTV. In Brockville, the claims to crime and "rowdyism" made by police and local business did not correspond with how Brockville citizens felt about safety and risk in their downtown core. Similar action has been taken in Peterbor- ough, ON, where the Stop the Cameras Coalition has been attempting to subvert an initiative proposed by the Peterborough Downtown Business Improvement Area through a variety of tactics, including cir- culating petitions, distributing posters, and hosting public debates 676 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice October 2005

about camera surveillance. Regulatory projects fail when top-down approaches to regulation are perceived by the public as disproportionate in relation to the scale of the so-called social problem in question.

Discussion and conclusion

Rather than relying on an undifferentiated version of the panopticon metaphor or conceptualizing surveillance as a top-down measure, I have demonstrated that open-street CCTV surveillance is generated from numerous social positions that interact and cross articulate in order to justify and implement (but also contest) social monitoring systems. To challenge reigning surveillance metaphors, I have drawn on a post-sovereigntist notion of power. From this perspective, governance as an activity could include "the relation between self and other, private interpersonal relations involving some form of control or guid- ance, relations within institutions and communities and, finally, relations concerned with the exercise of political sovereignty" (Gordon 1991: 3). Governance can be both local and global, although in the case of open-street CCTV regulation involves a struggle over urban space and moral boundaries.

Governance entails new forms of political process and political association, but these new forms have not yet fully ruptured the political bedrock of modernity. Representative government remains at the same time that sovereignty begins to be questioned, anticipated, and pre-empted by extensive forn^s of politics (TuUy 2001). Acknowledg- ing that the governance literature sees emancipation as having col- lapsed into regulation, which makes resistance a more decentralized process than programmatic politics can account for, future research needs to examine the tension between "building privacy in" and "protesting surveillance out" (Bennett and Grant 1999: 7) as it per- tains to open-street CCTV in Canada specifically and to surveillance generally.

Regardless of the position from which camera surveillance schemes are generated, the majority of them are operated by police. As demonstrated earlier, however, the motivation to implement open-street CCTV can emerge from numerous social positions and occurs in a mass-mediated political landscape outside the realm of the state. Because privacy legislation is primarily aimed at public and private institutions, legislation cannot anticipate and obstruct the establishment of citizen-driven surveillance schemes. The politics of privacy fail to acknowledge that the power to regulate the population moves Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 677 through the population itself and is not simply exercised from above. The right to privacy is thus not always the most effective language for chal- lenging open-street CCTV surveillance operatives. If open-street CCTV is a regulatory form of urban governance, and urbanism as a way of life is proliferating across the globe, then open-street CCTV may soon become a security fixture of the global city. Knowing that legislation and bureaucracy are not enough to regulate open-street CCTV surveillance and protect the social value of privacy, a more praxical approach to contesting urban CCTV monitoring must be artic- ulated.

Notes

1. See betow for a more in-depth account of open-street CCTV in London.

2. Kelowna RCMP had implemented a trial camera in 1998 that was subse- quently destroyed when the pole supporting it was set ablaze in the summer of 1999.

References

2001 Special Section 2002 London Free Press, January 1.

Bauman, Zygmunt 1997 Postmodemity and Its Discontents. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bauman, Zygmunt T998 Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press.

Bauman, Zygmunt 2000 Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beaubien, Roxanne 1999a Cameras urged for 16 sites downtown: Anti-crime surveillance plan goes to council next month for OK. London Free Press, December 17: A3.

Beaubien, Roxanne 1999b Drive begins to buy cameras for core, aim to raise $200,000 for surveillance at 16 locations in hopes of easing downtown safety fears. London Free Press, August 28: A3. 678 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale octobre 2005

Beck, Ulrich 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Bennett, Colin J. and Rebecca Grant 1999 Introduction and conclusion. In Colin J. Bennett and Rebecca Grant (eds.). Visions of Privacy: Policy Choices for the Digital Age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Carroll, Bill and Bob Ratner 1999 Media strategies and political projects: A comparative study of social movements. Canadian Journal of Sociology 24:1-34.

The case for cameras 2001 London Free Press, November 9: AlO.

Colen\an, Roy 2003 Images from a neoliberal city: The state, sur\'eillance and social control. Critical Criminology 12: 21-42.

Coleman, Roy 2004 Reclaiming the streets: Closed circuit television, neoliberalism and the mystification of social division in Liverpool, UK. Surveillance and Society 2: 293-309.

Coleman, Roy and Joe Sim 1998 From the dockyards to the Disney Store: Surveillance, risk and security in Liverpool city centre. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 12: 27-i5.

Coleman, Roy and Joe Sim 2000 You'll never walk alone: CCTV surveillance, order and neo-liberal rule in Liverpool city centre. British Journal of Sociology 51: 623-639.

Corrigan, Phillip and Derek Sayer 1985 The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution. Lon- don: Basil Blackweil.

Crisis in the core: A special investigation of Hamilton's failing downtown 2001 The Hamilton Spectator, March 17: Al.

Daniszewski, Hank 2001 Controversy focusing on cameras: Privacy act says 24-7 surveillance may infringe on individual rights. London Free Press, June 23: A3. Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 679

Fairclough, Norman 1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Foucault, Michel 1979 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, Michel 1994 Two Lectures. In Michael Kelly (ed.). Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fyfe, Nicholas R. and Jon Bannister 1996 City watching: Closed-circuit television surveillance in public spaces. Area 28: 37-46.

Giddens, Anthony 1985 The Nation-State and Violence: Volume Two of a Contemporary Cri- tique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goldie-Ryder, Deborah 2000 Letter to the editor: London appears set to back core cameras. London Free Press, April 3: AlO.

Gordon, Colin 1991 Governmental rationality: An introduction. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller (eds.). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hall, Stuart, Charles Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Robert 1980 Encoding/decoding. In Stuart Hall (ed.). Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79. London: Hutchinson.

Hay, Colin 1995 Mobilization through interpellation: James Bulger, juvenile crime, and the construction of a moral panic. Social and Legal Studies 4:197- 223.

He didn't die for nothing 2000 London Free Press, June 17: F2.

Herbert, John 1999 Police chief plans call for action on core violence. London Free Press, January 25: Al. 680 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice October 2005

Herbert, John 2001 Walking the walk: Is there enough policing in the core? London Free Press, December 8: B4.

Hermer, Joe 1997 Keeping Oshawa beautiful: Policing the loiterer in Public Nuisance By-Law 72-94. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 12:171-192.

Hier, Sean P. 2002 Raves, risks and the ecstasy panic: A case study in the subversive nature of moral regulation. Canadian Journal of Sociology 27: 33-57.

Hier, Sean P. 2003 Risk and panic in late modernity: Implications of the converging sites of social anxiety. British Journal of Sociology 54: 3-20.

Hier, Sean P. 2004 Risky spaces and dangerous faces: Urban surveillance, affective governance and CCTV. Social and Legal Studies 13: 541-554.

Hunt, Alan 1999 Governing Morals: A Social History of Moral Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, Alan 2003 Risk and moralization in everyday life. In Richard V. Ericson and Aaron Doyle (eds.). Risk and Morality. Toronto: University of Tor- onto Press.

Isin, Engin F. 2004 The neurotic citizen. Citizenship Studies 8: 217-235.

Knight, Graham 1998 Hegemony, the media and New Right politics: Ontario in the late 1990s. Critical Sociology 24: 105-129.

KPMG 2000 Evaluation of the Lion's Eye in the Sky Video Monitoring Project. http://www.police.sudbury.on.ca/publications/reports/KPMG.pdf

Lianos, Michalis 2003 Social control after Foucault. Surveillance and Society 1: 412-430. Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 681

Lianos, Michalis and Mary Douglas 2000 Dangerization and the end of deviance: The institutional environment. In David Garland and Richard Sparks (eds.). Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lyon, David 1991 Bentham's panopticon: From moral architecture to electronic surveillance. Queen's Quarterly 98: 596-617.

Lyon, David 2001 Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Magnusson, Warren 1996 The Search for Political Space: Globalization, Social Movements, and the Urban Political Experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mathiesen, Thomas 1997 The viewer society: Michel Foucault's "panopticon" revisited. Theo- retical Criminology 1: 215-234.

Matthews, Roger 2002 Crime and control in late modernity. Review of The Culture of Con- trol: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society by David Gar- land. Theoretical Criminology 6: 217-226.

Matyas, Joe 2001 Core camera project focuses on grief. London Free Press, April 4: A3.

McCahill, Mike 2002 The surveillance web: The rise of visual surveillance in an English city. Cullompton, U.K.: Willan Publishing.

McRobbie, Angela 1994 Folk devils fight back. New Left Review 203: 107-116,

Miner, John 2001 Walk agairist violence raises $10,000. London Free Press, May 17: A2.

Monaghan, Jim 1999 Brockville, video surveillance: People spoke, we listened, council says. Recorder and Times, January 28: A3. 682 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale octobre 2005

Norris, Clive 2003 From personal to digital: CCTV, the panopticon, and the technologi- cal mediation of suspicion and social control. In David Lyon (ed.). Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk, and Digital Discrimina- tion. London: Routledge.

Norris, Clive and Gary Armstrong 1999 The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV. Oxford: Berg.

O'Flanagan, Rob 2002 Sudbury's eye in the sky could be grounded. Sudbury Star, Septem- ber 24: BIO.

O'Malley, Pat 1996 Risk and responsibility. In Andrew Barry, Thomas Osbome, and Nikolas Rose (eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo- liberalism, and Rationalities of Government. London: UCL Press.

O'Malley, Pat 1999 Governmentality and the risk society. Review of Policing the Risk Society by Richard V. Ericson and Kevin D. Haggerty. Economy and Society 28:138-148.

Orwell, George 1984 Nineteen Eighty-Four: With a Critical Introduction and Annotations by Bernard Crick. Oxford: Clarendon Press. lOriginal work published 1949]

Paraskevas, Joe 2001 Surveillance cameras win committee's OK. London Free Press, March 13: A4.

RCMP commissioner wary of public surveillance cameras 2004 The Record, June 14: C15.

Robins, Kevin 1995 Collective emotion and urban culture. In Patsy Healey, Simin Davoudi, Ali Madani-Pour, Stephen Graham, and Stuart Cameron (eds.). Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. Chichester, U.K.: lohn Wiley.

Rose, Nikolas 2000 Goveming liberty. In Richard V. Fricson and Nico Stehr (eds.). Gov- erning Modem Societies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Open-Street Camera Surveillance in Canada 683

Seymour, Lori 2001 Core security cameras likely 2-3 weeks away. London Free Press, September 1: A2.

Shea, Michael P. 2003 CCTV community consultation results. Hamilton Police Services.

Sher, Jonathan 1999 Councillors at odds whether knifings hurt core's revival. London Free Press, January 18: A3.

Taylor, Jim 1999 We don't need video surveillance. Recorder and Times, January 15: A6.

Tully, James 2001 Democracy and globalization: A defeasible sketch. In Ronald Beiner and Wayne Norman (eds.), Canadian Political Philosophy: Contem- porary Reflections. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Valverde, Mariana and Loma Weir 1988 The struggles of the immoral: Preliminary remarks on moral regulation. Resources for Feminist Research 17(3): 31-34.

Ward, Kevin 2002 Big Brother: coming soon to a city near you? Canada's privacy commissioner leading fight over video surveillance. The Edmonton Jour- nal, October 14: A13.

Webster, Frank 1995 Theories of the Information Society, New York: Routledge.

Williams, Katherine S. and Craig Johnstone 2000 The politics of the selective gaze: Closed circuit television and the policing of public space. Crime, Law and Social Change 34:183-210.

Zajac, Ronald 2003 Mayor mulls idea of video surveillance. Recorder and Times, Septem- ber 19: Al.