\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
![\"RUTH](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/4119350_web1_260408-CCTV-Broadway2-.jpg\")
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRUTH BONNEVILLE \/ FREE PRESS
\nThe downtown community safety partnership\u2019s monitoring hub is expecting to add feeds from Winnipeg Police Service and City of Winnipeg cameras, which would increase aerial oversight to more than 100 locations.<\/p>\n
Back on foot on Portage Avenue, the surveillance thickens, but so does traffic and noise. You probably aren\u2019t thinking about the new business security cameras, also encouraged by government rebates.<\/p>\n
Closer to the core, cameras become harder to miss. Higher density brings more surveillance from cameras at businesses, traffic signal cameras, red-light photo enforcement and, coming soon, police wearing bodycams.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ll cross the fields of view of cameras run by the Downtown Community Safety Partnership, a publicly funded non-profit providing 24-7 non-emergency patrols and outreach. Its central monitoring station now lights up with feeds from 49 participating downtown businesses and organizations.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ll also pass under the Winnipeg Police Service\u2019s CCTV cameras, which, located in high-crime downtown areas, increased in number from nine to 25 in 2022, with more planned for the near future. Those feeds are expected to be added to the mix at the downtown safety-monitoring station.<\/p>\n
And then there\u2019s that \u201calways on\u201d surveillance device known as your smartphone, whose GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, apps and motion sensors create both internal and external trails that can reconstruct your movements with striking precision.<\/p>\n
That walk downtown probably feels less solitary than you thought.<\/p>\n
Most of us have come to accept eroding privacy as an unavoidable feature of modern life.<\/p>\n
We live in public, as the saying goes.<\/p>\n
But the popular image of mass surveillance \u2014 the state encroaching on private life \u2014 now feels incomplete next to the technology that enables it.<\/p>\n
Technology that relies on complex collaboration between government and private actors, as we\u2019re seeing in Winnipeg.<\/p>\n
All this contributes to a growing debate about what our privacy rights are, and what it even means to consent to surveillance and monitoring today. Many experts warn that relevant legal frameworks regulating surveillance are woefully out of date.<\/p>\n
Still, why get too paranoid, especially if you\u2019re doing nothing wrong?<\/p>\n
Beneath the CCTV cameras on Portage Avenue, few are bothered by the eyes in the sky.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are a lot of criminal activities going on downtown, so some of these cameras serve as a watch for us,\u201d says John, a child-care worker who arrived in Canada seven months ago.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \u201cYou think about the safety of children,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n Alexander, an evacuee from Pimicikamak Cree Nation, says he\u2019s unfazed by the privacy loss.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s good that they put cameras everywhere, in buses and every corner\u2026 Just in case there\u2019s an investigation happening and the cops need to see everything,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd I believe (gangs) would stay away \u2014 there will be more safety for poor people.\u201d<\/p>\n Winnipeg\u2019s strides in beefing up surveillance may seem relatively modest. It\u2019s been three years since then-premier Heather Stefanson promised to install an extra 75 government-operated CCTV cameras downtown, but 2022 was the last year of notable expansion. Next to Toronto and its highly layered networks \u2014 where police monitor feeds from municipal CCTV systems, condos, banks, Business Improvement Areas \u2014 Winnipeg appears to lag.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also tempting to shrug off increased privacy infringement here as a necessary evil in a city with comparatively high crime rates.<\/p>\n After all, hasn\u2019t the growing prevalence of surveillance already proven effective?<\/p>\n Think of 19-year-old River Harper, killed in 2024 after a scuffle with two other young men. Security cameras captured their comings and goings, and provided key evidence that led to manslaughter convictions for his assailants last September.<\/p>\n Or consider last year\u2019s wave of mysterious arson fires and break-ins downtown. Surveillance footage helped charge security guard Jesse Robert Shawn Wheatland with 22 counts across 11 sites, including setting fire to the offices of Manitoba NDP cabinet ministers Nahanni Fontaine and Bernadette Smith.<\/p>\n These cases remind us of something uncontroversial: security footage can help police and prosecutors lay charges and make them stick.<\/p>\n On the other hand, evidence showing surveillance reliably reduces crime is weaker.<\/p>\n A 40-year systematic review in 2019 found CCTV produced a modest decrease in crime, while a 2020 synthesis of 30 mostly American studies found police bodycams had no clear, consistent effect on officer or citizen behaviour. Research into the effects of mobile surveillance on incidence of crime is still emerging, and seems more suggestive than conclusive.<\/p>\n These studies are touchstones for any serious debate about the efficacy of mass surveillance. But the debate may rage forever, not only because of competing interests and stubborn partisans, but because rapidly changing technologies constantly introduce new dimensions to the problem.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a more basic question in play: to what extent have we consented, in the first place, to mass surveillance in the wide range forms it takes today?<\/p>\n Measuring consent isn\u2019t straightforward. People\u2019s daily activities can seem to signal that they agree to live, work and study under various magnifying glasses. But this status quo may not satisfy more robust definitions of consent relevant to privacy rights.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Still, evidence suggests Canadians are fairly trusting of government surveillance.<\/p>\n A 2024-25 research poll by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found six in 10 Canadians (62 per cent; up from 58 per cent in 2022) believe the federal government respects their privacy rights, while eight in 10 trust law enforcement to protect their personal information.<\/p>\n Trust plummets with private actors: only 40 per cent believe businesses respect their privacy, fewer than half (42 per cent) trust telecoms and internet providers and just 12 per cent trust social media companies. Similarly low trust applies to smartphones, AI tools, biometrics and internet-connected devices.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t surprising. Private companies and citizens operate under looser rules about capturing and using data. And it\u2019s this gap, according to some Canadian scholars and privacy advocates, where meaningful consent is disappearing in ways that raise tricky questions about our rights \u2014 and, potentially, about how the state is collaborating with private surveillance.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is a need to balance privacy rights with legitimate public safety concerns\u2026 but right now, the law is lagging behind technological change,\u201d says University of Manitoba law professor Bruce Curran. \u201cWe desperately need to modernize our privacy legislation\u2026 It\u2019s kind of the Wild West out there.\u201d<\/p>\n State surveillance is constrained by Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects citizens against \u201cunreasonable search or seizure.\u201d This sets a higher standard for surveillance than the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Canada\u2019s federal law governing how private entities collect data.<\/p>\n Think of it this way: Section 8 is a locked door beyond which the state needs legal authorization to enter, while PIPEDA is a window with blinds that can be raised or lowered at will. Companies and private actors may play Peeping Tom, capturing your data or recording your movements, but only if you\u2019ve consented by knowingly opening the blinds.<\/p>\n In both cases, surveillance and data capture is assumed to be fairly episodic and localized. Police intercept communications only after acquiring a legal warrant; companies collect your data after you \u201csign here\u201d during a store purchase.<\/p>\n But as Curran points out, technological acceleration complicates these assumptions.<\/p>\n Your smartphone tracks your movements from home to work, while apps and APIs (application programming interfaces) collect data on what you view and click online. Opting out isn\u2019t straightforward and consumers often lack the knowledge to make informed choices. The end result is often a detailed picture of routines that can be aggregated and sold off to the highest bidder.<\/p>\n Everyone knows that by entering public spaces we give up some privacy \u2014 we can be seen by others \u2014 and Canadian law treats the \u201creasonable expectation of privacy\u201d as consistent with this. But being visible isn\u2019t necessarily the same as being identifiable. The spread of CCTV, doorbell cameras and smartphones with biometric capabilities \u2014 allowing them to recognize facial features, fingerprints, voice patterns \u2014 is changing this dynamic.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s almost misleading, in a way, to talk about mass surveillance\u2026 I think what we\u2019re really worried about is mass identification,\u201d says Neil McArthur, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. \u201cI think we\u2019ve never had a social contract where you\u2019re giving up your right to be identified.\u201d<\/p>\n Tech companies, residents and local businesses have pretty wide latitude over what they do with collected data, including sharing it with police. In practice, this can empower law enforcement to create a detailed \u201cpost-hoc\u201d picture of your movements, freer from Section 8 strictures.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \u201cThere hasn\u2019t been much in the way of Section 8 rights cases on\u2026 potential partnerships between government on the one hand and private businesses on the other,\u201d says Curran. \u201cBut probably you we will see more and more as time go goes on, because it will become more prevalent in terms of playing a role, not exclusively, but typically in the criminal context.\u201d<\/p>\n For now, a federal legislation overhaul is stalled. Bill C-11 was Canada\u2019s first big attempt to modernize private-sector privacy law by ramping up enforcement and penalties while replacing parts of PIPEDA with a beefier new Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA). The bill died on the order paper in 2021.<\/p>\n The followup, Bill C-27, also proposed a CPPA and a tribunal for disputes and enforcement, while introducing the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act to regulate private-sector AI. It was killed when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025.<\/p>\n Seemingly every Winnipeg neighbourhood has one: a Facebook group where residents discuss lost cats, traffic jams and, everyone\u2019s favourite topics, trespassing, theft and suspicious activity. Many posts include footage and stills from doorbell and residential cams.<\/p>\n Scrolling through the River Heights Community Watch group on Facebook, a recent post shows four kids wandering a Campbell Street back alley. One of them opens an unlocked door of a parked car.<\/p>\n There\u2019s some rifling around by the first youth, then all of them scamper off without appearing to take anything \u2014 although, obnoxiously, they leave the vehicle door wide-open, potentially draining the car\u2019s battery.<\/p>\n Other posts show clear thefts or break-ins; some contain only stills of hooded, more dishevelled types who look out of place in River Heights, along with descriptions of suspicious behaviour. Commentators play detective about the identities of these presumed perps and advise how to stay vigilant.<\/p>\n McArthur \u2014 who, in a recent analysis for The Conversation examining legal blindspots surrounding government and commercial surveillance, gave special attention to doorbell cams \u2014 is especially uncomfortable with the use of biometrics where children are concerned.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is technology that\u2019s going to be used on people who are\u2026 not even adults,\u201d he says. \u201cI actually am encouraged\u2026 when I hear talk from people across the political spectrum, they are worried about (biometrics) to a fairly equal degree.\u201d<\/p>\n In Canada, home-entry cameras such as those on the Ring Video Doorbell can recognize familiar faces \u2014 though not unknown people \u2014 by name. But Ring aims to use AI more proactively \u201cto zero out crime in neighbourhoods,\u201d as founder Jamie Siminoff wrote in a leaked 2025 email.<\/p>\n \u201cHe sees that this is a perfect integration of his cameras with the sort of groups and neighbourhood activists that (we\u2019re) talking about,\u201d says McArthur.<\/p>\n When asked about it, River Heights Community Watch members offer up little in the way of protest about facial recognition or doorbell cams.<\/p>\n \u201cIf AI has to be used, I\u2019m glad it\u2019s for good,\u201d says Victoria Martin.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you aren\u2019t doing anything wrong you can just ignore cameras as a part of life we now have to tolerate for the greater good,\u201d says Melanie Mitchell, who runs three Airbnb properties in the city and says those \u201chouses are covered in cameras too. Mostly to keep my guests and their vehicles safe.\u201d<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t In the Wolseley Neighbours group, members also upload doorbell footage, though apparently not as frequently as the River Heights group. Member Eric Rae is more critical of burgeoning surveillance.<\/p>\n \u201cThe city keeps spending more and more money on the symptoms of poverty, addiction and homelessness, but doesn\u2019t want to do anything about the cause,\u201d he says. \u201cSurveillance capitalism is gross.\u201d<\/p>\n While residential or personal surveillance isn\u2019t as centralized as state surveillance, the Manitoba government has ways of encouraging and incentivizing it.<\/p>\n Law enforcement doesn\u2019t have automatic access to footage, though individuals and businesses can register their surveillance devices so police know where nearby cameras are located during investigations. In 2024, nearly 9,000 residents and tenants accessed the Manitoba Security Rebate Program\u2019s $300 reimbursement for security equipment \u2014 and in late 2025, a $2,500 rebate was offered to small businesses.<\/p>\n University of Manitoba law professor Brandon Trask warns outsourcing surveillance to private entities may raise knotty questions about Charter rights.<\/p>\n He compares it to the COVID-19 pandemic, when Manitoba \u201cessentially offloaded responsibilities that would normally be considered government responsibilities to the private sector,\u201d having private employees scan proof-of-vaccination documents and contracting security to carry out COVID lockdown enforcement.<\/p>\n \u201cI thought, \u2018Are they hoping to sidestep the application of the Charter?\u2019 Because you can\u2019t do through the back door what you\u2019re not allowed to do through the front door,\u201d Trask says.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd that, I would say, is like a basic principle here that should apply to public-private in relation to the surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n Whatever complexities surround the evolving legal framework, the Winnipeg Police Service says that in almost every investigation police inquire into the availability of surveillance.<\/p>\n \u201cOur investigators are appreciative of the level of co-operation we receive from the public and businesses,\u201d says Const. Stephen Spencer.<\/p>\n \u201c(I)n an overwhelming majority of instances, the community and businesses want to assist police investigations and are prepared to share what they have,\u201d he adds, noting the WPS lacks statistics on how often surveillance is obtained and used in investigations.<\/p>\n Likewise, a Manitoba RCMP spokesperson says businesses and residents are generally co-operative with requests for surveillance video, though data is not kept on how frequently it is sought.<\/p>\n Twentieth-century French philosopher Michel Foucault famously treated the 19th-century \u201cpanopticon\u201d \u2014 a circular-shaped prison with a central watchtower that surveils every inmate simultaneously \u2014 as emblematic of modern society. He argued modern disciplinary power operates through an insidious gaze. We stop noticing all the subtle ways it permeates and dominates our lives in part because we\u2019ve internalized its norms and now police ourselves.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t However high-minded this influential theory, the murky boundaries between private and public space, and commercial and state surveillance, give it a certain amount of fodder.<\/p>\n Yet modern surveillance is often less efficient than imagined \u2014 generating vast amounts of poor-quality footage, often with blind spots or technical and human errors. Most camera feeds don\u2019t connect to a hub monitored by an institutional authority, won\u2019t be made public and aren\u2019t active much of the time. To describe this as panoptic seems paranoid.<\/p>\n Or take police bodycams \u2014 98 per cent of front-line RCMP officers are equipped with them as of November, and Winnipeg police are piloting their own program beginning in June.<\/p>\n People increasingly expect police to wear them and believe officers are supposed to turn them on during most public interactions, but governing protocols are more complex. Their footage is typically controlled by police, who face stricter rules about publicizing and sharing such data.<\/p>\n For Christopher Schneider, a Brandon University sociology professor and co-author of a book on bodycams, the dynamics of control bring other problems.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen police are telling the public that we are going to monitor and regulate our officers\u2026 they\u2019re self-regulating, and there\u2019s no direct oversight,\u201d says Schneider, noting that while bodycams generate vast and costly databases, these are rarely used to discipline officers.<\/p>\n WPS Supt. George Labossi\u00e8re says while some front-line officers may forget to turn on their cameras in the early days of rollout, \u201cwe certainly expect their members will not deviate from the protocol.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a little time for grace. Otherwise, we have service defaults that can start off as minor service defaults to heavier penalties, if need be, where people are given a punishment. Won\u2019t go into great detail about that, but we do take it very seriously, and it\u2019s important we lay it out very clearly for officers.\u201d<\/p>\n Labossi\u00e8re touts accountability and transparency when describing the program, saying it protects both the public and WPS members, however Schneider is more skeptical as to whether the benefits are in fact symmetrical.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not just that police have discretion over bodycam protocols, it\u2019s also that they can use the footage to shape public narratives, he argues.<\/p>\n \u201cIf say, for example, you\u2019re involved in a police interaction, and you believe that the police have assaulted you and engaged in excessive use of force, and you want access to your body-worn camera footage\u2026 you in Canada must file a Freedom of Information request, which can be subject to lengthy delays,\u201d Schneider says. \u201cThis provides a distinct advantage to police.\u201d<\/p>\n Clayton Thomas-M\u00fcller is used to being surveilled. The Mathias Colomb Cree Nation member, who resides in Winnipeg, has spent years on the front lines of climate and Indigenous activism, often, he says, under the watchful eyes of police and private security.<\/p>\n \u201cEvery Indian in Canada\u2026 there\u2019s straight-up fear \u2014 and it\u2019s not coming from a paranoid place \u2014 about the implications of getting up and speaking their mind,\u201d he says. \u201cThere are very real-world consequences to people.\u201d<\/p>\n The ICE raids in the U.S. only heightened those fears, he says. Meanwhile, biometrics give new reasons for anxiety.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \u201cThis new era of policing and surveillance, (it\u2019s) removing the human from data analysis,\u201d he says. \u201cWe, literally as kids, grew up watching horror movies about why AI is dangerous. Here we are.\u201d<\/p>\n Some may downplay these concerns, prioritizing order over privacy of the \u201cunruly\u201d when it comes to public protest, while others may insist free speech must be defended at all costs.<\/p>\n When push comes to shove, and people see their freedom of speech or that of their political camp under attack, it can suddenly become sacrosanct.<\/p>\n \u201cPrivacy scholars often argue that surveillance chills free expression, that people behave differently if they think they\u2019re being watched,\u201d says McArthur. \u201cAny reasonable person\u2026 knowing that we have this network of cameras\u2026 is going to stop and think about that.\u201d<\/p>\n The issue extends beyond the political left and right \u2014 and beyond the concerns of protesters directly in the public square.<\/p>\n \n\t\tWinnipeg Free Press | Newsletter\n\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t Even supporters on the 2022 Freedom Convoy\u2019s sidelines, who donated to the cause legally via GiveSendGo, faced censure and job loss after a data breach leaked their identities. The threat of \u201cdoxing\u201d \u2014 releasing private information to intimidate, harm or silence someone \u2014 affects society today in unprecedented ways.<\/p>\n Privacy versus expression, private versus public space, commercial versus state power, security versus freedom \u2014 today\u2019s milieu gives dizzying dimensions to classic tensions. The rapid expansion of new technologies forces us to think hard about the stakes.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s really important that people have public debate, and that this is talked about in the national discourse, right down to here in our great city,\u201d says Thomas-M\u00fcller.<\/p>\n McArthur adds: \u201cI think there is a moment right now when, if we are able to push our lawmakers to act, I think at the very least, we could come up with some meaningful legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n winnipegfreepress.com\/conradsweatman<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t Conrad Sweatman Conrad Sweatman is an arts reporter and feature writer. Before joining the Free Press full-time in 2024, he worked in the U.K. and Canadian cultural sectors, freelanced for\u00a0outlets including The Walrus, VICE and Prairie Fire. Read more about Conrad.<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMIKE DEAL \/ FREE PRESS FILES
\nSurveillance footage played a role in helping police solve a high-profile arson spree.<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRUTH BONNEVILLE \/ FREE PRESS
\nCCTV cameras, including at Hargrave Street and Portage Avenue, have been placed at high-crime locations throughout downtown.<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSecurity footage has aided recent police investigations, including one into the shakedown of small business owners.<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDoorbell cameras are a relatively new tool for neighbourhood crime watch groups. <\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMIKAELA MACKENZIE \/ FREE PRESS
\nFootage from 49 security cameras mounted by businesses and organizations feed into the large dashboard at the Downtown Community Safety Partnership.<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMIKE DEAL \/ FREE PRESS
\nCanadian Footwear is among the participants in the downtown safety program, with four cameras around its Adelaide Street site.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Reporter
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n