This blog post examines various perspectives on whether installing CCTV in kindergartens is an effective measure for preventing child abuse and ensuring safety, or an unnecessary step that infringes on teachers’ fundamental rights and privacy.
We are constantly watched by CCTV. When visiting public places, it’s easy to spot CCTV cameras watching us from the ceiling. In fact, when CCTV was first installed, many people strongly opposed it, citing privacy concerns. However, over time, this opposition gradually subsided, and now almost everyone passes by CCTV cameras without any resistance. The notion that CCTV infringes on privacy has somehow faded from our daily lives, and its presence is now taken for granted.
The reason CCTV could become so widely installed is that it brings positive effects, such as crime prevention, rather than simply infringing on privacy. As demonstrated by numerous experiments and cases, CCTV has established itself as an important tool that justifies a certain degree of intrusion into personal privacy for public purposes. Particularly in crime prevention in public spaces, the role of CCTV has already been proven by extensive research.
However, until recently, kindergartens were outside the scope of mandatory CCTV installation. The reason was that kindergartens are crucial spaces where children first interact with society, growing through the process of freely playing and learning. Yet, when an incident occurred where a kindergarten teacher assaulted a child, parents began to believe that kindergartens and daycare centers were by no means safe from child abuse incidents. This incident sent shockwaves throughout society, prompting the Ministry of Education to begin recommending CCTV installation in kindergartens. Furthermore, by subsidizing installation costs, the trend of installing CCTV in kindergartens is increasing. Consequently, the National Assembly is actively discussing a bill to mandate CCTV installation in daycare centers, using this situation as a catalyst.
Of course, it cannot be denied that CCTV can help prevent child abuse crimes. However, whenever violent or criminal incidents receive significant media coverage, people tend to fall into a false sense of security. While the government promotes CCTV installation to address this situation, it is questionable whether this is truly the best solution. We often accept the infringement of individual privacy for the sake of public interest as a given, but this mindset carries the risk of human rights violations. From this perspective, I wish to raise concerns about the legal installation of CCTV in kindergartens.
First, there is the issue of infringing fundamental rights. Many people seem to take the violation of fundamental rights too lightly. Installing CCTV directly infringes on the fundamental right to portrait rights. Portrait rights refer to the right not to be filmed or published without consent. The education office pushing for and mandating CCTV installation without the consent of kindergarten teachers constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights without establishing specific agreements or principles between the parties. Rushing to install CCTV solely for crime prevention disregards the portrait rights of parents and children and is by no means a proper solution.
Many may argue that CCTV serves the public interest, particularly in kindergartens where crime prevention justifies some restriction of individual fundamental rights, and that childcare centers, being public spaces, have an obligation to install CCTV. However, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea has stated that even when installing CCTV to prevent school violence, it poses a risk of human rights violations. This is because the actions of all students and teachers within the classroom are recorded, and fundamental rights such as the right to one’s image, freedom of action, and freedom of expression can be restricted due to continuous surveillance. This signifies that the end does not justify the means. Furthermore, if the purpose of installing CCTV is to prevent child abuse, this inevitably leads to the perception of teachers as potential child abusers. Therefore, questions arise about whether CCTV should be installed at the cost of infringing on these fundamental rights, given the implications of human rights violations and the infringement of teachers’ authority.
Next, CCTV cannot be a fundamental solution. The government’s policy of attempting to solve this issue simply with machinery cannot be the solution. Even considering only the pro-CCTV arguments reveals these problems. Proponents argue for installation by emphasizing restricted access to footage, meaning only parents suspected of abuse, investigative agencies, or relevant officials could view it. However, this fundamentally involves continuous recording itself—the primary argument for infringement of fundamental rights—and appears to be an admission that child abuse will occur in the future. Ultimately, this is merely a reactive measure, not a fundamental solution. Furthermore, the government has not proposed any alternatives to CCTV installation. It is questionable whether human problems can truly be solved by installing CCTV solely as a crime prevention measure.
Arguing that it is not a fundamental solution, CCTV installation could instead create a balloon effect. The balloon effect refers to the phenomenon where solving a problem in one area leads to new problems emerging elsewhere. While CCTV is installed to reduce crime rates, crime rates may actually increase in areas without CCTV. Similarly, child abuse by teachers can occur anytime in places without CCTV.
Proponents might argue CCTV is a temporary measure to restore trust between teachers and parents. However, even the budget invested in this temporary measure is merely pouring water into a bottomless pit. If, in a situation where there is already a problem with the teacher, only temporary measures are put in place without solving the fundamental problem, the issue will inevitably resurface. Some people, seeing the recent Incheon daycare incident, might say, “Thank goodness there was CCTV; without it, such a teacher would have been left unchecked.” However, viewed from another perspective, the assault occurred despite the presence of CCTV. From this viewpoint, it is questionable whether CCTV can truly fulfill its role as a temporary measure.
Instead, teachers who deserve punishment should be disciplined, and the costs of installing CCTV should be directed toward improving teachers’ working conditions and enhancing their educational qualifications. In the long term, such investments could be more effective in solving the fundamental problem.
Proponents emphasize the severity of the current situation and advocate for CCTV installation to address it. They argue that restricting individual freedom to some extent is unavoidable for public interest purposes, viewing CCTV installation as natural since kindergartens are public spaces where children and teachers meet and interact. However, even for public interest, there must be clear limits to infringing on fundamental rights. CCTV in kindergartens can continuously cause violations of fundamental rights, with significant potential to restrict behavior and infringe on freedom of expression. This is merely a temporary measure to address an immediate problem and can never be a fundamental solution.
Rather than installing CCTV, measures to address the root causes must be developed. This is why improving teacher qualifications, strengthening child abuse prevention education, and creating an environment that fosters positive relationships with children are necessary. Ultimately, legalizing CCTV installation, which simply infringes upon the fundamental rights of both teachers and young children, is undesirable.
