Editorial | Keran McCollin’s murder and JamaicaEye

Maybe people are just too overwhelmed by violent crime in Jamaica to have noticed, and be outraged by, the case of Keran McCollin. He was shot dead last week near his home in White Lane in Naggo Head, Portmore, St Catherine.

Mr McCollin, 39, was a cable television technician. His neighbours described him as a decent, quiet man who spoke little. He was an asset to their community.

Mr McCollin, the south St Catherine police reported, was murdered because he installed a video camera on his home and refused the demand of the criminals to take it down. It is not known if Mr McCollin’s camera was functional, or if it was linked into the Government’s JamaicaEye scheme. We hope it was and helps to provide evidence that contributes to the arrest and conviction of his murderer(s).

Mr McCollin’s killing highlights two important facts. One is the impunity with which criminals behave in Jamaica because the probability of being caught, and made to pay, is low. The other is their fear that closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, similar to that installed by Mr McCollin, may capture their crimes and weaken their impunity. Which strengthens the case for the JamaicaEye project – and its expansion across Jamaica. The system only makes sense, though, if it is used.

Yet, after five years, the system has not caught on with the Jamaican population – at least not in the way we hoped, or as it should. Part of the reason for this is the low public education and awareness about the project. Relatively few people know about it, and many who do are either sceptical or have little trust that information gleaned from its cameras won’t be traced directly back to the owners of the specific CCTV system from which it came. That is a consequence of the little faith that Jamaicans have in the police. Indeed, two-thirds of adults believe that the constabulary is corrupt, and that many of its members are in cahoots with criminals.

It is critical, therefore, that these trust issues are addressed more aggressively by the Jamiaca Constabulary Force (JCF), which academics, who study the institution, say would probably require removing up to 20 per cent of the JCF’s current members.

More immediately, though, JamaicaEye has to do a better job of building confidence in the system and making information about it more accessible to the public – in a fashion that more people can understand. For example, the JamaicaEye website’s FAQ (frequently asked question) on who monitors the cameras merely says: “Due to the high volume of streams, camera feeds will be monitored predominantly by software programmed to detect threats to public safety.” There is little clarity on who is accessing the feed and where the data is stored.

Further, given challenges with seamless Internet services, those who choose to share their security video feed with JamaicaEye may “experience a reduction in Internet speed during active monitoring of your camera feeds,” it says. Who wants that?

These technicalities are, or ought to be, easy fixes. Further, a better case has to be made for the project and for the fact that the system, as it is structured, is not an intrusive Big Brother mechanism, eroding people’s constitutional right to privacy. Legitimate concerns about facial recognition technology and how these have been misused in many jurisdictions also have to be discussed.

The bottom line is that there needs to be a robust conversation around JamaicaEye, taking into account the Naggo Head murder, at which we should all be angry.

Our concern at the lack of outrage over Mr McCollin’s murder is its potentially chilling effect. Other people might refrain from installing cameras for fear of reprisal.

This is a matter to be addressed by the national security ministry and the people who run JamaicaEye. They need to give assurances and advice on how this can be done safely. Mr McCollin’s death should be a rally cry, not a call to retreat.