UK: "Talking" CCTV expanded
01 July 2007
In April 2007 the Home Office announced the extension of "talking" CCTV cameras to 20 "communities" across England at a cost of over £500,000. The scheme was piloted in Middlesbrough and involves a relatively small number of an area’s surveillance cameras being fitted with twin loudspeakers from which council workers in a command centre can confront those guilty of anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, littering and drunkenness. Voice recordings of children from local schools will sometimes be played in the hope that they will shame offenders into complying. Louise Casey, head of the government’s “Respect” task force, said that “we are encouraging children to send this clear message to grown ups - act anti-socially and face the shame of being publicly embarrassed.” In December 2006 The Observer reported that Westminster council was trialing a similarly principled system in which high-powered microphones were attached to cameras to monitor conversations and alert police when aggressive noises that may preempt a violent encounter were detected (see
Statewatch Vol 17 no 1).
Both schemes reflect the government’s unerring belief in the extension of CCTV cameras as a crime prevention tool despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. And in May 2007 the new national advisory body for the industry, CameraWatch, suggested that as many as 90% of Britain’s 4.2 million cameras are operated illegally and don’t comply with the UK CCTV code of practice. Speaking at its launch, the organisation’s founding chairman, Gordon Ferrie, claimed that most cameras in public places breach the Data Protection Act and that many are also in conflict with the EU Human Rights Act. The former is frequently breached because its stipulation that images of people should be treated with the same degree of confidentiality as names, addresses and phone numbers, is not being adhered to. Further, a significant number of cameras are not registered under the Data Protection Act as required, and many of those that are being used for a purpose other than that for which they were registered; another violation. Viewing monitors are often fitted in public areas from which access is not suitably restricted and many new digital cameras now transmit images across insecure internet connections. Ferrie argues that operational flaws such as these mean “clever legal counsel could drive a horse and cart through most CCTV evidence…”
Companies breaching peoples’privacy
At the launch of his office’s annual report, the UK Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, revealed that private companies and public bodies are breaching peoples’ privacy on a regular basis. Investigations undertaken by his Office over the past year found that large high-street banks, such as Barclays and Natwest, have been throwing documents containing customer names and addresses out on the street with their rubbish. The former also faces sanctions for misusing personal data to make sales calls, while the Nationwide bank took three weeks to realise that a laptop stolen from an employee contained the account details of thousands of customers. As a result of another high profile investigation in December 2006, Liverpool City Council was fined for failing to comply with the Data Protection Act. In response to this “frankly horrifying… roll call of organisations that have admitted serious security lapses”, Thomas has called for an extension of his Office’s powers to be able to freely conduct inspections and audit companies without having to seek permission (as is currently the case). This, he believes, would “force the pace”, providing a greater incentive for companies to acquaint themselves with the security issues surrounding data protection and improve their operational practices.
Independent 11/7/07, The Times 5/4/07, 31/5/07, Guardian 11/7/07; Information Commissioner’s Office Annual Report 2006/07; www.camerawatch.org.uk