When crimes - from terrorist bombings to broken windows and torched cars on the edge of mass demonstrations to criminals acting independently - occur in public spaces, investigators need the ability to view video footage to help identify perpetrators. Ubiquitous high-quality cameras have a role in solving and deterring crime. A good list of proposed justice-system reforms (here is one) includes a light touch on crowd control at public demonstrations in concert with aggressive response to any violence – as part of permitting, organizers must acknowledge that the proceedings are monitored by city cameras as well as those of the participants. But what of privacy? And what keeps a city employee from tracking someone through video recordings for reasons having nothing to do with solving or deterring crime?

Video surveillance of workplaces, retail spaces and apartment or condo buildings by the property owner help to keep the spaces safe. Again, ubiquitous high-quality cameras have a role in solving and deterring crime. But how can workers, shoppers, and residents be assured that they're not spied upon for reasons having nothing to do with safety?

Safeguarding people against potential criminals and surveillance abuse can be done with deferred surveillance. By this we mean:

• At the source – at the camera – video information is split into multiple streams transmitted by separate channels to separate storage at separate physical locations in a way that video information can not be reconstructed from any one store or intercepted channel.
• Video information is constructed for the first time only if warranted. By “warranted” we mean only with an actual judge-signed warrant for recording in the public sphere, and only by published satisfaction of a published policy (such as "a resident having reported being grabbed in laundry room at 7:40am, I invoke association bylaw 5-29 to construct and view relevant video from 7:20 – 8:00 and assign the viewing to board members B and E"). Published viewing policy can be as simple as referring the construction and viewing to the police or to the property owner, as long as it's known to workers, shoppers, or residents subject to potential surveillance.