More and more, and for a variety of reasons, levels of government are capturing our images and personal information –and we are allowing this to happen. From the red-light camera program to curb traffic offences to the recent announcement by Hamilton Police Service that it is expanding the number of closed-circuit television cameras in high-crime areas, we will soon be unable to move in public spaces without being caught on candid camera.

In addition, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) has announced that slots and casino facilities will be equipped with facial recognition technology. OLG officials stress that the $4-million program will be implemented only as a tool to enhance the self-exclusion program, in which people struggling with addiction ask to be banned from OLG properties, and not to catch cheaters or criminals.

OLG Chief Executive Officer Kelly McDougald assured a recent gathering of local tourism industry officials that the OLG was being responsible when it comes to issues of privacy. “We always have to be respectful,” she said. “You can never cross that line.”

While that line may be blurred in the public realm, when it comes to the Hamilton’s Public Health department proposing to ban subsidized housing residents from smoking in their own units, there is no question: this is a violation of basic human rights. The fact that it targets some of the most vulnerable members of the community –those living below the poverty line on disability pensions, welfare or other forms of public assistance – makes it even more distasteful. These are people whose ability to choose has already been severely limited by their economic circumstances.

Forget that such a bylaw would be virtually unenforceable. Instead, look at the message that such a policy would send: because you accept public assistance, we can tell you the choices you can make in your private life. While the attempt to enhance non-smoking initiatives at any level is laudable, this is not the way. Kudos to city council for opting not to endorse the policy until its restrictions are more clearly outlined.

Perhaps instead of trying to regulate what people do in the privacy of their home, the public health department’s time, energy and funds would be better used to further develop smoking cessation awareness and assistance programs. Or, better yet, to eliminate the need for new public housing units by working to reduce the poverty level in the city.

It’s tempting to believe that intelligent health and safety choices can be legislated. And that those who manage the personal information that is collected in the process will use the data in our best interests. The reality is that, when it comes to public surveillance and private freedoms, there is too much danger that the more we have of one, the less we will have of the other.