Signage in urban ‘open-street’ CCTV arrangements is explored in relation to the strategies and forms of law brought to bear upon it. In the context of privacy regulation, CCTV signage’s content reflects deterrence strategies and political subjectification consistent with liberal governmentality. CCTV signage is evinced to be both an agent and target of privacy and other forms of law and is therefore shaped and brought into being by complex webs of legal governance. Rather than befitting panoptic arrangements or merely amplifying CCTV’s deterrent effects, CCTV signage signals and serves as a vital element of the surveillant assemblage. Possessing varied functions, including features attributed to surveillance cameras, CCTV signage is a material means by which the surveillance assemblage interfaces with the legal complex and by which urban time-spaces are constituted. This analysis moves beyond previous accounts of regulatory signage and has broad implications for governmentality and surveillance studies.
Bennett, C. and D. Bayley (eds) (2005) Reasonable Expectations of Privacy? Eleven Country Reports on Camera Surveillance and Workplace Privacy. The Hague: TMC Asher Press.
2.
City of London (2004) London Downtown Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Program Code of Practice. Ontario: City of London.
3.
City of Windsor (2006) City of Windsor Downtown Video Surveillance Policy. Ontario: City of Windsor.
4.
Cole, M. ( 2004) ‘Signage and Surveillance: Interrogating the Textual Context of CCTV in the UK’, Surveillance and Society2: 430-5.
5.
Dean, M. ( 1994) Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. London: Routledge.
6.
Dean, M. ( 1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
7.
Dean, M. ( 2007) Governing Societies. New York: Open University Press.
8.
Ferrell, J. ( 1996) Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality . Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
9.
Foucault, M. ( 1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
10.
Goold, B. ( 2002) ‘Privacy Rights and Public Spaces: CCTV and the Problem of the "Unobservable Observer"’, Criminal Justice Ethics21: 21-7.
11.
Gras, M. ( 2004) ‘Legal Regulation of CCTV in Europe’, Surveillance and Society2(2/3): 216-29.
12.
Haggerty, K. ( 2006) ‘Tear Down the Walls: On Demolishing the Panopticon’ , pp. 23-45 in D. Lyon (ed.) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Cullompton: Willan.
13.
Haggerty, K. and R. Ericson ( 2000) ‘The Surveillant Assemblage’, British Journal of Sociology51: 605-22.
14.
Haggerty, K. and R. Ericson ( 2006) The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
15.
Hawkins, K. ( 2003) Law as Last Resort. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
Hermer, J. and A. Hunt ( 1996) ‘Official Graffiti of the Everyday’, Law and Society Review30: 455-80.
17.
Hier, S. ( 2004) ‘Risky Spaces and Dangerous Spaces: Urban Surveillance, Social Disorder and CCTV’, Social & Legal Studies13: 541-4.
18.
Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) ( 2001) Guidelines for Using Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places. Toronto: Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.
19.
Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) ( 2004) Privacy Review: Video Surveillance Programs in Peterborough . Toronto: Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario.
20.
Jones, A. ( 2008) ‘Guilty Verdict in Creba Case’, The Globe and Mail on-line version.
21.
Koskela, H. ( 2003) ‘"Cam Era": The Contemporary Urban Panopticon’ , Surveillance & Society1: 292-313.
22.
Lippert, R. ( 2002) ‘Policing Property and Moral Risk through Promotions, Anonymization, and Rewards: Crime Stoppers Revisited’, Social & Legal Studies11: 475-502.
23.
Lippert, R. ( 2006) Sanctuary, Sovereignty, Sacrifice: Canadian Sanctuary Incidents, Power and Law. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Lippert, R. ( 2007b) ‘Urban Revitalization, Security and Knowledge Transfer: The Case of Broken Windows and Kiddie Bars’, Canadian Journal of Law and Society22: 29-54.
26.
Lippert, R. ( 2008) ‘Review of David Lyon (2007) "Surveillance Studies: An Overview", Canadian Journal of Sociology33: 471-4.
27.
Lippert, R. and D. O’Connor ( 2003) ‘Security Assemblages: Airport Security, Flexible Work and Liberal Governance’, Alternatives28: 331-58.
28.
Lippert, R. and K. Stenson (eds) (2007) Special issue on ‘Urban Governance from Below’, Canadian Journal of Law and Society22(2).
29.
Lyon, D. ( 2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Oxford: Polity.
30.
Ontario Women’s Justice Network (2003 ) ‘Jane Doe v. Board of Commissioners of Police Toronto’ , available at: http://www.owjn.org/archive/jane.htm
31.
Rose, N. ( 1999) Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Rose, N. and M. Valverde ( 1998) ‘Governed by Law?’, Social & Legal Studies7: 541-51.
33.
Valverde, M. ( 2006) Law and Order: Images, Meanings, Myths. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
34.
Williams, J. and R. Lippert ( 2006) ‘Governing at the Margins: Exploring the Contributions of Governmentality Studies to Critical Criminology in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice48: 703-20.
35.
Zedner, L. ( 2007) ‘Pre-crime and Post-criminology?’, Theoretical Criminology11: 261-82.
