NO CCTV

- Anti CCTV News (cctv general)

CCTV drones: Policing by remote control - 30/1/2010

All we have of freedom, all we use or know -
this our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

- Rudyard Kipling, The Old Issue

A recent Guardian newspaper article ('CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones', 23rd January 2010[1]) reveals plans to use surveillance drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to spy on UK citizens. The project, called the South Coast Partnership, sees arms manufacturer BAE Systems teaming up with a "consortium of government agencies led by Kent police".

The Guardian report states that:

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the "routine" monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The Home Office's 'Science and Innovation Strategy 2009–12' [2], published last year, confirms that the UK government has been exploring the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as a policing "tool", it states:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are likely to become an increasingly useful tool for the police in the future, potentially reducing the number of dangerous situations the police may have to enter and also providing evidence for prosecutions. However, we will need to investigate how such vehicles could be used, and their ability to provide high quality evidence for convictions and to support police operations in 'real time'.

Secrecy of UAV development

Obtaining information about plans for civilian UAV deployment is not easy - the South Coast Partnership has no public website, appears to publish no documents and has not been discussed or debated in parliament - it operates below the radar of the public that it is the intention to surveil. As a result this article has been pulled together from a variety of disparate sources including many mainstream newspaper articles rather than original source documents. It is hoped that this patchwork of information will at least serve as a preliminary overview of this expanding field.

How it all started?

The South Coast Partnership project was launched at the Police Aviation Conference 2007 in the Hague, Netherlands and was sold primarily as a coastal/border patrol project. However rather tellingly a BAE Systems Press release of the launch [3] quotes Andrew Mellors, Head of Civil Autonomous Systems at BAE Systems, who said:

From 2012 fully autonomous unmanned air systems could be routinely used by border agencies, the police and other government bodies. These systems will be fully autonomous so that operators task the vehicles and receive the relevant imagery and intelligence direct to the ground control station in real time.

A December 2007 Sunday Times article [4] ('Spy drone to patrol coast in hunt for people smugglers', Sunday Times 2nd December 2007) whilst focusing primarily on the coastal patrol application of UAVs by Essex police also pointed out that:

It is understood the police have expressed interest in using the £5m drone to monitor crowds during demonstrations and events such as football matches.

The Sunday Times article also revealed that one of the UAVs being adapted by BAE Systems for the South Coast Partnership is the High Endurance Rapid Technology Insertion (Herti) which will fly above 20,000ft, with cameras powerful enough to see humans on boats as if they were a few feet away and capable of taking pictures in darkness using night vision lenses.

A November 2009 Essex local newspaper article [5] ('Essex Police may use unmanned planes for surveillance', 30th November 2009) reported that within two years UAVs could be flying in the skies over Essex supposedly to "help combat illegal immigration and drug smugglers". The article revealed a few more of the players in the South Coast Partnership project: the UK Border Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and the Marine and Fisheries Agency. It was further noted that "the drones could also fly over major events, such as the V Festival, or major incidents", with the ability to "read a number plate from 20,000ft and criminals will not know they are under surveillance."

The civilian use of the Herti UAV was first mooted shortly after it was declassified from BAE's "black" projects in July 2006. A BBC News Online article [6] that same month ('BAE spyplane eyes commercial sector', BBC News Online 20th July 2006) said:

Until now they have largely been the preserve of the generals. The US military routinely uses them over Iraq and Afghanistan. But now the world's aerospace companies reckon they can make money by selling them to civilians too, for a wide range of tasks such as traffic control, border patrols, or crop and drought monitoring.

Drone, UAV, UAS?

The drone/UAVs being described here should not be confused with those already controversially in use by Police in the UK [7], as pointed out in a recent NeoConOpticon blog post [8]:

there are actually two types of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs): (i) the armed and unarmed 'drone' planes’ to which the Guardian report refers, and (ii) much smaller miniature spy planes. The latter are basically remote-controlled aircraft fitted with cameras

The US Department Of Defence Dictionary of Military Terms [9] defines the term Unmanned aerial vehicle as:

A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. Ballistic or semiballistic vehicles, cruise missiles, and artillery projectiles are not considered unmanned aerial vehicles. Also called UAV.

It defines the term drone as:

A land, sea, or air vehicle that is remotely or automatically controlled. See also remotely piloted vehicle; unmanned aerial vehicle.

And it defines unmanned aircraft system as:

That system whose components include the necessary equipment, network, and personnel to control an unmanned aircraft. Also called UAS.

Militarisation of the Police

The UAVs being developed by BAE are adapted from military hardware used in war zones to allow military personnel to kill people from the comfort of an office chair, often thousands of miles away from the "zone of fire". Their use has been extremely controversial because of civilian casualties. A recent UK Home Office report on Pakistan [10] for instance points out that: "The limited tactical results achieved by these drone attacks have been overshadowed by the negative impact they have had on public opinion as a result of civilian casualties". A BBC Radio 4 documentary 'Robo Wars' [11] to be aired 1st February asks a pilot, who from the UK remotely flies UAV missions over Afghanistan, whether knowing he has killed people he can let it go at the end of the working day, the pilot answers:

You've got to. Yeah okay, it's gonna weigh on your mind and then I've got a 45 minute drive home, so I just stick the radio on, listen to a podcast, whatever - just drive home and then by the time I'm home I'm kind of straight into family life.

The proposed use of adapted versions of this controversial military hardware by government agencies and the police to monitor their own citizens clearly goes further to blur the distinction between the military and civilian law enforcement; the police are being equipped as a de facto army against the people. It is an obscene abuse of power - the replacement of policing by consent with policing by remote control. In his 1929 book 'The New Despotism' then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart coined the phrase "Administrative Lawlessness" to describe a worrying trend in English politics at that time - the exercise of arbitrary power, where decisions are made in secret, not based on evidence and without proper debate. The secret development of CCTV UAVs or drones by bodies such as those in the Home Office backed South Coast partnership represents yet another step towards completing the forewarned Administrative Lawlessness now evident the world over as civil liberties are squandered.

It is not just in the UK that the use of surveillance drones has been secretly developed. In the United States in 2007, Houston police set up a UAV test site consisting of black trucks, satellite dishes and whirling radar in a remote area approximately 45 miles west of Houston [12]. A local television crew was alerted to the test and Executive Assistant Police Chief Martha Montalvo was forced to go public. Whilst the UAV tested in this case was a smaller variety than those being developed by BAE, the KPRC Local 2 website article [13] reveals that the stated aims of proponents are pretty much the same:

Montalvo told reporters the unmanned aircraft would be used for "mobility" or traffic issues, evacuations during storms, homeland security, search and rescue, and also "tactical." She admitted that could include covert police actions and she said she was not ruling out someday using the drones for writing traffic tickets.

Modern cities like war zones

Professor Stephen Graham of Durham University [14] ("Cities and the 'war on terror'", International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2006) describes how the US administration has securitized the everyday urban spaces where "all-pervasive discourses of 'homeland security,' emphasizing endless threats from an almost infinite range of people, places and technologies, are being used to justify a massive process of state building".

This process involves deepening state surveillance, repression and violence against those seen to harbour 'terrorist threats', combined with radically increased efforts to ensure the effective filtering power of starkly reinscribed national, infrastructural and urban borders. After decades where the business press and politicians endlessly celebrated the supposed collapse of boundaries (at least for mobile capital) through neoliberal globalization, 'in both political debates and policy practice, borders are very much back in style'.

Graham goes on to explore the similarities of measures adopted in 'homeland' and 'target' cities:

Since 2002, for the first time, fleets of apparently identical US unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have indeed patrolled both the increasingly militarized border of the Southern United States and the cities and frontier lands of the war zones of the Middle East. Identical, that is, except in one crucial respect. Tellingly, in the former case, however, worries have been expressed about the dangers of accidental crashes from unarmed drones flying over the US’s civilian population by Federal aviation safety officers.

Back in the UK the civil use of UAVs is being developed in Wales, two miles south of Aberporth at a technology park called ParcAberporth. ParcAberporth was developed by the Welsh Assembly Government on the site of a former RAF airfield. The Welsh Assembly has spent over £13 million on the establishment and running of ParcAberporth [15]; last year they ran a consultation on 'An Airspace Change to Establish Segregated Airspace for The Wales Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Environment' [16], the consultation document says:

The Welsh Assembly Government has identified the UAS [unmanned aircraft system] sector as an area with potential for significant economic impact for West Wales. To that end ParcAberporth was developed by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2003/04 as a Centre of Excellence for leading aerospace companies involved in the research and development of UAS.

Aberporth is in Ceredigion which received European Union 'Objective 1' funding (awarded to those areas in the European Union whose GDP is less than 75% of the EU average). Part of this funding was used to develop ParcAbeporth on the pretence that it had the potential to create over 200 jobs near Cardigan. A 2006 EU Ceridigion press release ('Objective 1 helps boost Ceredigion with Unmanned Flying Vehicles') [17] states:

Andrew Davies, Minister for Economic Development and Transport described ParcAberporth as a unique centre within the UK, which had tremendous potential, "Development of ParcAberporth means we have an opportunity to play a lead role in the rapidly growing UAV sector and are working to ensure it becomes a significant centre in the UK for the research and development of new technologies and new civil applications."

According to the 2009/2010 UAS Yearbook [18] a partnership has been set up with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Aberporth, West Wales Airport and the West Wales UAS centre to create the Wales UAS Environment and "West Wales Airport is the only site in the UK able to undertake routine operations of civil and military UAS operations and the only UK airport to have a UAS Operations Manual accepted by a civil regulatory authority".

Thankfully there is some opposition the the UAV centre in Wales. Bro Emlyn – for Peace and Justice (BEPJ) [19], a group who campaign on peace and justice issues in the Newcastle Emlyn area of West Wales, are calling for action against drone testing at ParcAberporth. Amongst BEPJ's concerns are:

50,000 people live under the new 650 sq mile UAV testing zone. Two drones have crashed in the first months of flying out of Parc Aberporth so there are great concerns about safety.
Operators will have to abide by a "code of practice" on privacy, but the MOD will be the main user and they are unlikely to be accountable in the same way.
Military drones attacks are calculated to kill 50 civilians for every combatant killed
The expected hundreds of jobs have not materialised. Only 18 people are currently employed at Parc Aberporth

There has also been some opposition to the use of UAVs within the UK police force itself. A report, in the Police Aviation News (PAN) journal [20], of the 2007 event at which the South Coast Partnership project was launched says:

Much of the good humoured banter generated in and outside the hall related to the inexorable approach of the UAV. Everyone was agreed that, industry aside, this spectre is still sufficiently distant to be largely discounted but here as everywhere it intruded into most conversations and finally became the object of humour. As is becoming increasingly clear in the day to day information gathering for PAN the subject simply will not just go away. There was evident hostility from the pilots to the newcomer – although most were agreed that the chances of such craft actually replacing air support as we know it were very slender. As has been proven recently the biggest danger appears to lie in potential air unit operators 'making do' with unmanned vehicles in the mistaken belief that a UAV can replace manned craft. They are aircraft but in reality those seeking to operate them are not of the current aviation fraternity. [...] There were certainly few real UAV fans in the Congress Centre.

Civilian UAVs - a multi-billion pound industry

A 2005 Welsh Assembly press release stated that: "The UAV sector is worth around £1 billion a year worldwide but this is expected to increase significantly with the predicted growth of civil applications" [21]. A more recent article on the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) website [22] predicts that Civilian UAV use is set to rise and reports that the "Virginia-based Teal Group estimates will be worth $62bn over the next decade". The UK group CorporateWatch, in an article about ParcAberporth [23], outline the companies driving the UAV agenda:

The rapid expansion of drone technologies is being pushed for by a veritable super consortium of arms companies, UK government agencies and universities, under the name Astraea (Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation & Assessment). These include: BAE Systems, Thales, Rolls Royce, Agent Oriented Software and QinetiQ; the South West of England Regional Development Agency, South East Economic Development Agency, Scottish Enterprise and the North West Regional Development Agency; and the universities of Loughborough, Sheffield, Lancaster and Aberystwyth, among others. State involvement in Astraea is 'led' by the Welsh Assembly and, as such, Astraea receives half its funding from the public sector, constituting £16million in total.

Further evidence of the financial rewards expected by members of the UAV industry is the scale of events, conferences and exhibitions staged around the world. Events in the UK such as the Bristol International Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) Conference [24] and the ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems demonstration and exhibition [25]; and in the United States - the Kansas UAV Symposium [26] and 'AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems North America' [27] described as "the World’s Largest Unmanned System Conference and Exhibition", which this year will take place in Denver, Colorado.

Despite the enormous profits the UAV corporations can generate from their hugely expensive toys these events it seems think nothing of taking tax payers money. The 2007 ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems demonstration and exhibition event received £181,145 from the Welsh Assembly government for "Showplace Hospitality Suites", "consultancy service" and "provision of services for the direction and management of the flying/ground demonstrations and associated rehearsals" [28].

The Olympics as pretext for a surveillance arms race

In the UK one of the pretexts being used for surveillance drones is the 2012 Olympics, indeed the South Coast Partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the games. The CCTV industry as a whole is rubbing its hands with glee at the expected growth of the UK CCTV, particularly in London. And of course the surveillance technologies are likely to stay after the Olympics unless robustly contested. In a June 2008 Guardian podcast [29], author Naomi Klein described the "kind of surveillance arms race going on" from one Olympic games to the next. In Athens $1.25m was spent, and in China somewhere in the realm of $12.5m, Klein warned:

What Londoners need to be aware of is the pressure that's being exerted behind the scenes by companies which have gotten a taste of the super profits in China, in the name of Olympic security, and they're going to be selling the same model now to any city that hosts the games.

The Panopticon

The Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) proposed a model prison called the Panopticon ("all-seeing") [30] which functioned as a round-the-clock surveillance machine. French philosopher Michel Foucault describes the implications of the Panopticon: "So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action". Drones that fly at 20,000 feet, that cannot be seen or heard from the ground would constitute another brick in the Panopticon prison that is being steadily built around us - unless we speak out and start taking the bricks down.

The problems of our society require more human interaction, not less. Silent, invisible CCTV drones should remain the stuff of science fiction novels - they have no place in a free country. Better community reduces crime, technology does not.

[The 23rd January Guardian drone article was based on documents obtained from Kent Police under the Freedom of Information Act. A request for the documents was sent to Kent Police on 27th January via the WhatDoTheyKnow website [31] but Kent Police have not yet made the information available to the wider public.]

Endnotes:

[ 1] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones
[ 2] - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/science-strategy2835.pdf?view=Binary
[ 3] - http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2007/autoGen_107107111943.html
[ 4] - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2983877.ece
[ 5] - http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4764733.Spies_in_the_skies_may_nab_drug_and_people_smugglers/
[ 6] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5198364.stm
[ 7] - http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:29_8ehy1B8IJ:hmic.homeoffice.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Merseyside/Merseyside_HMIC_Major_Crime12835.pdf+%22force+makes+use+of+a+drone+for+covert+and+overt+intelligence%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
[ 8] - http://neoconopticon.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/uk-police-plan-to-use-military-style-spy-drones-hits-front-pages
the NeoConOpticon blog is a follow-up to a report on the EU Security Industrial Complex published by the Transnational Institute and Statewatch in September 2009
[ 9] - http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary
[10] - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/pakistan-180110.doc
[11] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qbxv5
[12] - http://www.insitu.com/pdf.cfm?cid=2114
[13] - http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14659066/detail.html#story
[14] - http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/information/staff/personal/graham/graham_documents/DOC%207.pdf
[15] - http://wales.gov.uk/publications/accessinfo/disclosurelogs/dl2300/disclog2394/?lang=en
[16] - http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/businessandeconomy/090505uas/%3bjsessionid=mqGJLYTQgTyDvQHnvMGyQGHswXqVgz2QJ1yJjvRVxcnmLTcVwL6G!-704087660?cr=2&lang=en&status=closed
[17] - http://www.euceredigion.co.uk/Press%20Releases/pressrelease-UAV.doc
[18] - http://www.uvs-international.org/uvs-info/Yearbook2009/index.htm
[19] - http://www.bepj.org.uk
[20] - http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Acrobat/PANConferences07.pdf
[21] - http://wales.gov.uk/news/archivepress/officefirstminspress/firstminpress2006/1087999/?lang=en
[22] - http://kn.theiet.org/news/aug09/uav-uvsi.cfm
[23] - http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3470
[24] - http://www.bris.ac.uk/uavs/history/
[25] - http://www.ibwales.com/business-sectors/aerospace-and-defence/news/parcaberporth-2008
[26] - http://www.uavsymposiums.com/#schedule
[27] - http://symposium.auvsi.org/auvsi10/public/enter.aspx
[28] - http://wales.gov.uk/topics/improvingservices/bettervfm/smartpurchasing/wob/contracts/?searchQuery=ParcAberporth&view=Search+results&lang=en
[29] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2008/jun/03/guardian.weekly
[30] - http://ucdwyer.xanga.com/62434760/item/
[31] - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/south_coast_partnership_drone_do

Posted in cctv general - 30/1/2010

Naked scanners, naked CCTV and barefaced lies - 21/1/2010

How digital strip searches got fast tracked...

Back in 2002 when biometric ID cards were first being suggested by UK politicians many of those of us that opposed their introduction pointed out that fingerprinting is associated with criminal suspects and that treating citizens like criminals is unacceptable in a free society. Now the proposed digital strip searching of airline passengers in the UK raises similar concerns. The UK government is suggesting that passengers should stand with their hands up and submit to a scanning technology that reveals their naked body to airport security staff. If the public submits to this demand and accepts this technology then it raises serious concerns about people's understanding of what privacy and freedom are and will not bode well for the future. It is up to the people of this country to take a stand and to say no to digital strip searches.

The pants incident

The current media hype around airport security has been sparked after an incident in the US on Christmas Day 2009. Please note that because the repeated mentioning of such events simply serves to stoke the climate of fear that is used to push through illiberal "security" policies, we will describe the incident just this once and refer to it hereafter as "the pants incident". On 25th December 2009 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year old Nigerian passenger boarded a flight from Amsterdam to the United States. It is alleged that Abdulmutallab had concealed nearly 3oz of powder Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (PETN), Tracetone Triperoxide (TATP) and other ingredients in his underpants. It is alleged that shortly prior to landing Abdulmutallab tried to detonate the ingredients causing a small fire to break out. The plane landed safely in Detroit.

The UK government announces roll out of naked scanners

On 5th January the UK Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced the government's intention to install naked scanners (referred to as 'body scanners' to play down their capabilities) in UK airports [1]. Johnson said:

The first scanners will be deployed in around three weeks at Heathrow. Over time, they will be introduced more widely, and we will be requiring all UK airports to introduce explosive trace detection equipment by the end of the year.

Johnson claimed that the naked scanners were a necessary response to the pants incident and most of the ensuing debate centred around whether the government could get the scanners in quick enough. Johnson described the security measures used in the House of Commons and hinted at the use of technologies such as behavioural CCTV (for example see the ADABTS project [2]) when he said: "Every day, sniffer dogs come into the Chamber, looking for PETN. Behavioural detection is another method".

The UK government does not see any need to introduce primary legislation or debate widespread introduction of naked cameras but will instead produce "a code of practice dealing with the operational and privacy issues involved".

So would naked scanners have exposed the pants?

When asked if naked scanners would have detected the small quantity of explosives involved in the pants incident even Johnson, who was trying to big up this illiberal hi-tech toy, couldn't say more than:

the indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a 50 to 60 per cent. chance of its being detected.

Many experts do not agree, the Independent newspaper reported [3]:

Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive Abdulmutallab used was low-density and so probably wouldn't have shown up on the scanner.

The question which did not get asked was whether subjecting law abiding citizens to digital strip searches that most likely would not have detected the offending ingredients in a passenger's pants in a single incident that was handled perfectly well by fellow passengers and led to no injuries, is a proportionate response to an extremely rare event (the full details of which have yet to be confirmed).

The US political commentary website FiveThirtyEight did some back of the envelope calculations on the odds of being aboard a plane involved in such a rare event, they guestimated that "the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000." [4]

Security expert Bruce Schneier studied the way in which our society increasingly is led by fear ('The Psychology of Security', Bruce Schneier 2007 [5]). Schneier points out that people exaggerate risks that are spectacular, rare and talked about but downplay risks that are pedestrian, common and not discussed. Being scared affects judgement and when combined with biases there are a number of reasons why the brain is going to respond irrationally to risks exaggerated by the media and politicians.

What are naked scanners?

Naked scanners are machines that look beneath the clothes of a person effectively producing images of a digital strip search. There are two main types of naked scanner, millimeter wave machine scanners and backscatter scanners. Backscatter scanners use two low-level X-rays taken within twenty seconds - the theory is that foreign objects will reflect the rays and be visible in the scan. Millimeter wave scanners emit radio waves that pass through your clothing and return with images of your body underneath - these produce the most revealing images. Millimeter wave technology is also used in the 'Active Denial System' - a heat ray gun that has been devloped for the United States Military [6].

Naked scanners knee-jerk?

The introduction of naked scanners has been described as a knee-jerk reaction by many critics but in fact they have been on the agenda for some time. UK defence contractor QinetiQ conducted a trial of a prototype naked scanner at Gatwick airport in 2002 [7], and trials took place at Heathrow airport in 2004, at Paddington railway station in 2006, Canary Wharf tube station in 2007 and Manchester airport in 2009. In August 2009 the UK Government published an 'Ideas and innovation' booklet [8] to accompany their 'CONTEST' counter terrorism strategy which called on industry and academia to find ways to: "screen people less intrusively (for example scan people without requiring the removal of clothing or other belongings)". In a 20th January Parliamentary debate Prime Minister Gordon Brown made much of increases in science expenditure and how the Security Minister, Lord West, in the CONTEST booklet has asked companies to work on developing new measures and new technologies that can deal with the detection of bombs hidden in body cavities.

The European level

[ Note: Decision making in the European Union (EU) can be difficult to follow as it is split between the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the national parliaments under procedures amended by the Lisbon Treaty - (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon) which was supposed to make things simpler! ]

In 2008 the EU Commission published a draft regulation that called for naked scanners in all European airports by 2010! The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force as the constitution of Europe on 1st December 2009 (though we're not supposed to use the c word) amends the Treaty of the European Union [9], Article 2 of which now states:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

[Emphasis added]

The Commission would be hard pushed to find a measure that showed less respect for human dignity than naked scanners and a debate in the European Parliament in October 2008 [10] showed that many Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) agreed, as they voted against rubber stamping the Commission's intentions.

Italian MEP Giusto Catania said:

The body scanner is the last frontier in this modern torture, as Stefano Rodotà describes it. The mania for extracting ever more information that could be useful in the fight against terrorism is fostering an authoritarian interpretation of the rule of law.
[...]
The control mechanism of a ‘mass-surveillance prison’ is being developed within society, so that all citizens are gradually being transformed into suspects who need to be monitored.

UK MEP Philip Bradbourn said:

If we are to justify this to our citizens, we first need to know why it is needed at all. Are we heading down the route of using more technology just for the sake that that technology is available, and also, what extent will the technology be used for? I can understand that, in some cases, this should be a secondary measure, where an individual chooses not to be, as we say, frisked by a security official. But as a primary screening measure it is a very serious breach of our basic rights to privacy and is intrusive.

On the issue of compulsion German MEP Eva Lichtenberger said:

We are told that everything is, of course, on a voluntary basis. Yes, this is not the first time we have been told such things. Anyone who refuses to fall in with the system would be under suspicion from the outset. The next step will be its compulsory introduction. As for the next step after that, I dread to think what it might be.

MEPs passed a resolution asking the Commission to clarify issues such as the impact on human rights, the impact on passengers health, under what circumstances an individual would be able to refuse a naked scan and to make sure that a wider, transparent and open debate involving passengers, stakeholders and institutions take place.

The Commission responded by launching a "short consultation" that ran from 27th November 2008 to Friday 19th December 2008 (then extended until 19th February 2009), but then I expect we all knew about that because it was a wide and transparent debate that was promoted extensively by the UK government and media, wasn't it? Then it appears the Commission went to sleep - until the pants incident.

The Spanish government (holder of the presidency of the Council of Ministers) is seeking a harmonised EU approach to the use of naked scanners at European airports [11] and was set to discuss the issue on 20th January at the EU Justice & Home Affairs Council of Ministers informal talks in Toledo [12]. Meanwhile a new EU Commission is currently being vetted by the European Parliament and is expected to take office 1st February.

There is a strong possibility that the new EU Commission will revisit the naked scanner issue some time after 1st February and ask MEPs to rubber stamp EU wide rules. One tactic that they are likely to use is the argument that as things stand individual EU countries are free to introduce scanners as they see fit so wouldn't it be better if EU regulations were introduced to try and reign in countries like the UK who are ploughing ahead? Of course this is similar to the arguments used in the UK with regard to the need to regulate CCTV, but the fact is that all regulation does is to endorse acceptance of naked scanners or CCTV by formalising their "proper use" and leaving no room for the rejection of such technologies.

Automated perverts

Another card that the EU Commission is likely to play is the so called advance in naked scanner technology since the last EU Parliament debate in 2008. Amsterdam's Schiphol airport has unveiled a new naked scanner that lets a computer analyse the naked image rather than a security official [13]. Ad Rutten, Schiphol Group chief operating officer said:

Well you don't need the human interface any more, so we don't need a controller anymore who looks at the pictures, who analyses the pictures. The computer can analyse the picture. So, by taking out the human interface, we think that the [European] parliament in the next round will approve the body scanners.

US announces plans to replace metal detectors with naked scanners in April 2009

Like the UK, naked scanners have been waiting in the wings for some time in the United States. The Transport Security Administration (TSA) has been trialing naked scanners in US airports since 2005 and in April 2009 they announced their intention to roll out scanners across the US, a New York Times report 4th April 2009 [14] stated:

In a shift, the Transportation Security Administration plans to replace the walk-through metal detectors at airport checkpoints with whole-body imaging machines — the kind that provide an image of the naked body.

Also in April 2009 the US congress passed an amendment [15] to the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act [16] that prohibits blanket scanning of passengers, calls for passengers flagged by another method of screening to be offered the option of a pat-down search instead of a naked scan and prohibits the storage, transfer, sharing, or copying of images. In July 2009 the Bill moved to the US Senate where it has yet to be voted on. On 20th January the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing 'Securing America's Safety: Improving the Effectiveness of Anti-Terrorism Tools and Inter-Agency Communication' and naked scanners were expected to be on the agenda.

Freedom of Information and Parliamentary Answers

The US privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has posted more than 250 pages of documents [17] it obtained from the TSA under the Freedom of Information Act concerning naked scanners. The documents reveal that the naked scanners used in the US can store and send images (when in "test mode") contradicting the TSA website claim that: "The machines have zero storage capability". The documents also show that the scanners have 10 variable privacy settings.

In the UK further details of government policy have been revealed via answers to Parliamentary Questions. When asked "what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of full body scanning security equipment for airports that does not use passive millimetre wave technology", Paul Clark (Department for Transport) replied [18] that:

The Department for Transport has assessed the effectiveness of active millimetre wave and backscatter Xray technology. It is envisaged that the body scanners to be deployed at UK airports will use either of these methods.

When asked if the government will "assess the compatibility with child protection legislation of the operation of full body scanners in UK airports", Paul Clark said [19]:

The introduction of the scanners is a necessary additional measure in response to the heightened threat to the travelling public. Their application to passengers including children, with the proposed safeguards as to their use, is a proportionate response to the heightened threat. The use of body scanners is compatible with the Protection of Children Act 1978. The use of scanners will be subject to a code of practice which is being developed by the Department for Transport and airport operators.

The question of compulsion

When asked in another Parliamentary Question "whether individuals who wish not to use body scanners at airports will be able to opt for a manual pat down search", Clark said [20]:

No. Individuals who are asked to use the body scanner but decline to do so will not be permitted to fly.

In the 5th January House of Commons debate, when asked by one MP whether the government will "respect those who may have a deep-felt objection to the scanners by allowing them to opt instead for a body-pat search", Johnson reiterated Clark's statement on compulsion with his reply: "I do not foresee a situation in which people can simply object to a body scan". Note he says he can't foresee a situation where people can object, not where people would object.

What's wrong with nudey scanners?

Naked scanners are an unnecessary and illiberal measure that like CCTV amounts to security theatre. Asking law abiding citizens to submit to a digital strip search is not acceptable. Security staff should have reasonable suspicion before subjecting anyone to a search of any kind. The blanket scanning of all passengers is not proportionate and treats everyone as a suspect. The police are governed by rules that state they must only search someone when they have reasonable suspicion to do so and, in the case of a strip search, after they have been detained. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) Code of Conduct, Code C Annex A which deals with strip searches [21] states:

A strip search may take place only if it is considered necessary to remove an article which a detainee would not be allowed to keep, and the officer reasonably considers the detainee might have concealed such an article. Strip searches shall not be routinely carried out if there is no reason to consider that articles are concealed.

Code A gives guidance on the grounds required for conducting a search (the objective test of suspicion) [22]:

Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information, and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind or, in the case of searches under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to the likelihood that the person is a terrorist. Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors alone without reliable supporting intelligence or information or some specific behaviour by the person concerned. For example, a person’s race, age, appearance, or the fact that the person is known to have a previous conviction, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other as the reason for searching that person. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

Not that the UK government is particularly concerned by the inconvenience of legality. On 12th January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR - NB not part of the EU) ruled that UK police powers under The Terrorism Act (2000) to stop and search individuals without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing were unlawful [23]. The judgment states:

The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that that power had been improperly exercised.

In conclusion, the Court considered that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They were not, therefore, 'in accordance with the law', in violation of Article 8.

The use of such technology must surely fall fowl of many laws, not least the Data Protection Act (DPA). The DPA exempts personal data processing from various data protection principles when the processing is for the prevention, detection or resolution of crime but the Act states that the processing must be "necessary". Chris Pounder, a Data Protection expert at Amberhawk Training expands on this issue [24]:

each ghostly image will be associated with other identifying information already in the possession of the data controller (e.g. the boarding card identification details of the data subject). This means the data controller has to be fair – so not only has there to be signage (which alerts each data subject to the purpose of the scan and other information to make the processing fair) but also the outcome of the processing has to be fair (in this case, by allowing travellers an alternative to the scan so that personal data are not processed). In relation to Schedule 2, the processing has to be "necessary" in terms of the legal provisions that surround airport security.

Naked scanner as the answer to years of airport security theatre

For almost a decade now airline passengers have been subject to lengthy airport security delays as they pass through metal detectors; have nail files, pen knives and nail scissors confiscated; remove shoes, coats and belts; dispose of liquids; and have belongings wiped with a cloth and placed in a magic sniffer device. Now naked scanners are being sold to the public as a way of speeding up the check-in process - simply submit to a digital strip search and you can speed your way to the departure lounge to drink over-priced coffee and get that next shopping fix.

Growing opposition

There is growing opposition to naked scanners in the UK, the US and in Europe. Privacy International has issued a statement 'on proposed deployments of body scanners in airports' which states:

we are deeply concerned that airport and security authorities increasingly deploy fashionable and unproven technology or intrusive measures on the basis of one-off security breaches. Allowing our security to be determined by knee-jerk responses is dangerous and counter productive.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) issued a press release 'New security measures are a knee-jerk reaction to the recent failed terrorist attack' [25] that says:

IHRC is concerned that the use of full body scanners is a draconian step taken by the Gordon Brown government to appear strong on matters of security.

Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) commenting on suggestions in 2006 that children could be naked scanned [26] said:

Children have a right to their dignity, particularly at an age when many are extremely sensitive about their bodies. To degrade a child in this way is tantamount to abuse.

American Civil Liberties Union has said [27]:

Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane.

The US privacy group The Privacy Coalition has set up a 'Stop Digital Strip Searches' campaign [28] and Facebook group [29] and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [30] (also in the US) have been doing some campaigning on the issue and have created an excellent information resource.

Health risks

The long term health risks associated with naked scanners are unknown. Some of the scanners expose people to low levels of ionising radiation and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) produced a 'Presidential Report on Radiation Protection Advice: Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems' [31] (prepared by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)) which points out that: "There is reasonable evidence that three to five percent of the population is significantly more sensitive to ionizing radiation than average". Assurances such as those made by the Civil Aviation Authority that: "The radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to 3 minutes radiation received on a transatlantic flight" [32] are not the same thing as saying that being exposed to yet more radiation or electromagnetic energy is safe.

How do we stop naked scans?

The obvious steps that can be taken to stop naked scans are to contact MPs, MEPS, members of Congress and the Senate, airports, airlines and travel companies to express concerns. But ultimately privacy conscious citizens the world over need to say NO to naked scanners. If you are asked to submit to a naked scan politely decline and ask why you are being digitally strip searched. If airports try to introduce compulsory naked scanning of passengers but the passengers refuse then at first they may stop people flying. But if enough people refuse they will stop naked scanning. Perhaps a no-fly insurance fund should be set up by civil liberties groups to reimburse costs of those at the vanguard of such refusal. A measure like this will only persist if we, the people let it. That is what democracy is - it is not about voting once every five years and then letting whoever "wins" do whatever they like no matter how illiberal or mad.

The next steps if we don't stop it - naked cameras.

CCTV cameras based on similar technology to naked scanners have also been developed. An Oxfordshire based company ThruVision Systems Limited has developed a range of naked CCTV cameras including the T5000 [33] which is "an outdoor people screening system that can detect concealed threats at distances". In other words such a naked camera could be used to scan crowds of people without their consent. In July 2009 a computer expert who worked on the same trading estate as ThruVision (the Milton Park estate, near Didcot) told local newspaper the Oxford Mail [34]:

One day I noticed a small white box-shaped trailer, which looked like a suitcase on a tripod, at the back of the ThruVision offices. The trailer was in the car park but there were wires connected to the camera four metres away on a small public grass area.

ThruVision refused to comment when asked to confirm whether they were testing the T5000 on the unsuspecting public passing through the business park.

Following the pants incident ThruVision issued a press release 'ThruVision Systems Ltd. announces how its products can assist in airport security screening' [35], in which they lay out their portfolio of products:

- ThruPort, a standalone screening solution for entrances and checkpoints.
- T5000, for primary screening and perimeter security indoors or outdoors at distances of up to 25 metres.
- T4000, for primary screening indoors at distances of up to 15 metres.
- T8000, for checkpoint security and secondary screening.

Crowded places and naked scans

ThruVision say these products can be used to "enhance security at checkpoints and elsewhere". The "elsewhere" was intimated in a Parliamentary Debate in the House of Commons on 20th January when Bob Spink MP asked "Does the Prime Minister agree that we must be vigilant in protecting passengers, particularly those who travel into London on trains and the tube, as that is probably still the main threat?" The Prime Minister replied [36]:

...we have to improve at all times the security of our trains and our transport infrastructure, and the protection of people in public places. Lord West [Security Minister] is co-ordinating the work that is being done to see what measures can be taken to improve security in all these areas, and we will continue to update our counter-terrorism strategy in the light of all the new information we have.

The use of naked scanners on the Rail and Underground was first suggested back in 2005. A November 2005 Department of Transport press release [37] describing a planned trial stated:

The trial will test equipment at a small number of UK railway and London Underground locations. [...] A small number of randomly chosen passengers will be asked to take part in the tests. This may involve either going through a scanner or being searched either by hand, with the use of portable trace equipment or with sniffer dogs. Bags may be passed through x-ray machines.

Last year the UK government ran a consultation entitled 'Working together to protect crowded places'. Published alongside the consultation was a supplement 'Safer Places' [38] that contains case studies, the supplement states:

At a major city station the whole station facility has been separated into security zones. The Restricted Zone (RZ) encloses the international departure and arrival lounges, platforms and trains and access is limited to ticketed passengers and authorised personnel. Passengers must pass through a security area operating airport standard screening systems.

In addition the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) has produced a guidance document 'Counter Terrorism Protective Security Advice for Stadia and Arenas' [39] that states:

When the building search is complete all persons entering the stadium should go through a search regime. Dependent on the threat this search could be restricted to random bag searches or at times of a high security risk extend up to full body searches of every person entering the ground.

In January 2007 the Sun newspaper obtained a leaked Home Office memo [40], which according to the Sun: "says 'detection of weapons and explosives will become easier' and says cameras could be deployed in street furniture."

According to media reports the Dutch police are also working on mobile naked cameras/scanners, the reports are said to be based on a confidential document which describes the plans to conduct searches in "high risk areas". According to DutchNews.nl [41]:

The document also mentions the possibility of carrying out long-distance scans and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches. In addition, the scan could be combined with a sniffer detector which would analyse an 'air sample' from a suspect for traces of drugs or explosives

Governments around the world look set to exploit the pants incident to spread airport style screening to 'crowded places', which could of course be everywhere. Parliamentary debates in the UK only seem to focus on how fast or how many crowded places can be turned into high security prisons as we move towards a total surveillance society. Governments always introduce measures that remove the freedoms of its citizens allegedly for the safety or security of those citizens - they rarely declare malevolent intent. That is why we have the concept of civil liberties - to protect citizens from the excesses of the state. They will continue to remove freedoms in the current climate of fear until we refuse to let them.

Prisoners and the BOSS chair

As the UK government moves towards making the entire country into a prison we would do well to bear in mind the type of scanning now routinely used on inmates in UK prisons since 2009. The "weakness" of naked scanners is that they can see through the clothes but they cannot see inside your body's cavities. Ministry of Justice minister Maria Eagle told the House of Commons last year [42]:

We have equipped all prisons with a body orifice security scanner (BOSS chair) [43] to detect internally concealed items such as mobile phones

Whist this has been touted in parliament as targeted at prisoners to disrupt the supply of illicit drugs into prisons, a 'Prison Service Instruction - Use of the Body Orifice Security Scanner (BOSS)' [44], reveals there is already function creep, the instruction states:

The BOSS may be used to scan prisoners, social, official and professional visitors and staff under Prison Rules 41, 64 and 71 (YOI Rules 47, 69 and 75) respectively. The frequency of searches using the BOSS and policies for its use are for local discretion and must form part of the Local Security Strategy (LSS), to be agreed by the Governor and Area Manager.

The introduction of naked scanning technology gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' and it must be stopped.

Endnotes:

Posted in cctv general - 21/1/2010

No CCTV on Red Ice Radio - 3/1/2010

A Red Ice Radio interview with Charles Farrier of No CCTV is now available on line at http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/12dec/RIR-091231.php.

The hour long interview covers many topics such as the problem with CCTV, Privacy, common law, Anonymity, Legal interpretation, Case Law, a tool in terrorism, a National CCTV Database, forensic science, sharing, Viido, DARPA, 7/7 Bombings in London, Stated aims of CCTV, Police state, nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, What are the Dangers with CCTV, guilty, until proven innocent, trust between governments and its citizens, Washington sniper, behavior recognition, A.I., Project Samurai, Golden Shield Project in China, Where does the money for these systems come from? RFID, Panopticon, political system change, tyrannical governments, Ubiquitous computing, Media Participation, CCTV in Scotland, minor infringements, Speakers on cameras, Speakers on cameras, Anna Minton, Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First Century City, Project Javelin, voice identification, Big Criminals, Big Brother, Reality Shows, Internet Eyes, CCTV treasure hunt, Smaller Technologies, Solutions and much more.

Red Ice Radio is an online radio show hosted by founder, filmmaker and researcher Henrik Palmgren. They also produce webcasts, videos, films, and currently in development is Red Ice TV. For more information see http://www.redicecreations.com.

Posted in cctv general - 3/1/2010

Scots fast becoming most surveilled in the UK - 18/12/2009

Today Big Brother Watch released a report that looks at the number of surveillance cameras operated by local councils throughout the UK. The report reveals that the number of council run cameras has almost tripled in the last ten years. Over that same period repeated studies into the effectiveness of CCTV have shown that it is not an effective crime fighting measure, yet councils continue to expand their camera networks.

Key findings in the Big Brother Watch report include:

- Portsmouth and Nottinghamshire Councils are in control of the most CCTV cameras with 1,454 each

- Residents in the Outer Hebrides are the most watched people in the UK with 8.3 CCTV cameras controlled by the council for every 1000 people.

- Portsmouth has the second highest number of CCTV cameras per 1000 people with 7.8

- The council controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras in Scotland is Fife with 1350 cameras

- The council in Wales controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras is Swansea with 326 cameras

- The council controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras in Northern Ireland is Belfast with 400 cameras

- Wandsworth is the most watched borough in London with 1113 CCTV cameras, or 4.3 cameras for every 1000 residents.

One aspect of the report that will surprise many is the high level of surveillance in Scotland. Fife Council, with 1350 cameras, has the third highest number in the UK, and four of the six councils with the highest number of CCTV cameras per 1000 people are Scottish. A fortnight ago the Scottish government published a review of the effectiveness of CCTV and a strategic report that called for yet more money to be wasted to upgrade the surveillance camera network. Closer inspection of the Scottish review reveals that they did not include the most recent evaluation of CCTV, the Campbell Collaboration Report which found that "evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing [...] did not have a significant effect on crime." The Campbell Collaboration Report was published in December 2008 and looked at 41 evaluations of CCTV - could its omission be evidence of the Scottish government sexing up a report? (See our previous blog story 'CCTV in Scotland: Broken Record')

Meanwhile the Home Office in Westminster has appointed an Interim CCTV Regulator and is gearing up to hard sell CCTV to the UK public. Faced with a mountain of evidence that shows CCTV does not live up to their claims, policy makers are set to: "Promote CCTV and its expansion by forming evidence based business cases" [see National CCTV Strategy recommendation 44]. What this means is changing the measure of success from analysis of crime figures to meaningless statistics like twiddles of the joystick or number of arrests. The recent arrest of a group of musicians in Staffordshire who were arrested by armed police and held overnight because a CCTV operator mistook their guitars for guns would for instance score as a positive use of CCTV under the new measure but a bad use of CCTV under the currently used measure.

Millions of pounds have been wasted on camera technology, money that should have been spent actually reducing crime - councils have traded our liberty for security and lost both. The standard response of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" suggests that law abiding citizens do not deserve or need the right to privacy - surely they deserve it the most.

The full Big Brother Watch report can be downloaded from www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/cctvreport.pdf

Posted in cctv general - 18/12/2009

Government appoints CCTV yes man - as surveillance industrial complex begins its takeover - 15/12/2009

Today (15th December) the government announced the appointment of Andrew Rennison to the post of Interim CCTV Regulator. The Home Office says that the Interim Regulator will work with the National CCTV Strategy Board on six key areas:

develop national standards for the installation and use of CCTV in public space; determine training requirements for users and practitioners; engage with the public and private sector in determining the need for and potential content of any regulatory framework; raise public awareness and understanding of how CCTV operates and how it contributes to tackling crime and increasing public protection; review the existing recommendations of the National CCTV Strategy and advise the Strategy Board on implementation, timelines and cost and development of an effective evidence base; and promote public awareness of the complaints process and criteria for complaints to the relevant agencies

The creation of the regulator is in line with the first recommendation of the National CCTV Strategy, published in October 2007, where it was described as "a body responsible for the governance and use of CCTV in the UK". Previous mentions of this body suggested it would be called the National CCTV Board but it seems that they chose Regulator to appease those who believe that surveillance cameras would be okay if they were properly regulated.

In reality the regulator will further legitimate the use of surveillance cameras in the UK despite studies, funded by the very bodies responsible for the Strategy (NPIA and the Home Office), that show CCTV is not an effective crime fighting tool. The line likely to be taken by government, the CCTV industry and unfortunately many so called civil liberties groups in the UK is likely to be that this is the first step in properly regulating CCTV. CCTV is already regulated by the Data Protection Act, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Human Rights Act - none of which adequately protect the freedoms of UK citizens from surveillance cameras. Regulation of surveillance cameras will simply add false legitimacy to the ever expanding CCTV network. We do not need more regulation - it is the common law principles which govern the protection of our privacy that we should all be working to uphold.

Rennison can hardly be viewed as an independent candidate for the CCTV job. He was a police officer who then joined the Gambling Commission before going on to become the first Forensic Science Regulator in 2007. He sits on the National DNA Database Strategy Board, which has responsibility for oversight of the controversial National DNA Database.

Rennison recently wrote an article for the November 2009 Electronic Newsletter on the Fight Against Cybercrime (ENAC), in which he tried to discuss forensics and digital evidence (such as that obtained from digital surveillance cameras). Rennison showed a bizarre disregard for the English language when he wrote:

Consideration of the word 'forensics' is a good starting point in a discussion on quality standards for this field of work. Is the recovery of intelligence or evidence from digital devices, whatever they might be, a forensic process? A strict definition of the word does not give an answer. However, common usage of the word is such that we all take it to mean any science, specialist or technical process applied to recovering evidence. We all know what 'forensic science' is, we might not be so good at explaining exactly what it is. Regardless of the semantic and definitional debates that are had, the specialist, technical or science knowledge or processes applied to recovering digital evidence is a forensic process.

One would have thought that the Forensic Science Regulator would have a somewhat more precise definition of forensic science given he's meant to be regulating it. Meanwhile the promoters of CCTV have been increasingly trying to sell CCTV as a 'forensic science' - when in reality it is not a science. CCTV is nothing more than an eye-witness and open to interpretation. This fact was acknowledged when cine film footage was used by police in Chesterfield in 1935 but was not admissible in court because it was viewed as unsubstantiated hearsay. Perhaps the reason policy makers are so keen to categorise CCTV in this way can be explained by another comment made by Rennison in the ENAC newsletter, he wrote:

Suffice to say that in the last ten years a whole industry has grown around the insatiable demand for 'digital forensics'.

And the members of that industry were tipped off about the formation of the CCTV Regulator last month at an invitation only event (the Global MSC Security Seminar) in Newcastle, the press release of which states:

[..] Garry Parkins, Consultant to the National CCTV Strategy Board, outlined to delegates the preferred proposal of the National CCTV Strategy Board, for implementing recommendation 1 of the national CCTV strategy [...] Delegates attending the seminar, held in partnership with Safe Newcastle and supported by the Government Office for the North East (GONE), were given a ‘last chance’ to contribute and influence the preferred proposal.

Note that the CCTV industry is offered a "last chance" to "contribute and influence" the CCTV Regulator, whilst there has been no public consultation, no parliamentary debate and the vast majority of the people in the UK have no idea that there is a National CCTV Strategy at all (see our earlier blog story 'National CCTV Agenda creeps forward' for more on the undemocratic nature of the implementation of the Strategy and expansion of CCTV in the UK).

In November 2008 Parkins had already told a previous invitation only Global MSC Security Seminar some details of the then planned CCTV Regulator, Parkins said:

The NPIA have agreed to the funding of £500,000 per year to provide the Project Management and Technical expertise to turn the Strategy into a development and delivery Programme.

Security industry groups like the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) and the Security Industry Association (SIA) have been involved in the formation of the CCTV Regulator. In January 2008 Pauline Nostrom, Chairman of the CCTV section of the BSIA was appointed to the group responsible for the implementation of the National CCTV Strategy (the National CCTV Strategy Programme Board). Nostrom is also a member of the Board of Directors of AD Group (a company selling CCTV solutions) where she is Director of Worldwide Marketing.

The commercial value of the surveillance camera industry was underlined in a report of this year's Global MSC Security Seminar on the Safer Newcastle website, which proclaims:

The CCTV industry in the UK has experienced continued growth in recent years. In 2004 it was worth an estimated £568 million and this is expected to rise to an estimated £700 million in 2009. It is thought that there are over 1.5 million CCTV cameras in operation in Britain, although certain studies show this figure to be higher; some estimates reaching 4.2 million cameras.

The National CCTV Strategy is about the removal of decision making from the democratic process, consulting with the surveillance industry rather than the people, disregarding extensive peer reviewed studies such as the Campbell Collaboration Review of CCTV that found: "CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing [...] did not have a significant effect on crime", fabricating supportive evidence through meaningless statistics such as number of arrests and twiddles of the joystick, and ultimately the creation of a network of cameras linked to multiple databases capable of facial, gait and behavioural recognition. That is if we let proponents of CCTV push ahead unhindered.

In January 1961 American president Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a famous speech warning of the dangers of the 'Military-Industrial Complex'. His words have strong resonance today and can be extended to the ever growing Surveillance-Industrial Complex in the UK. Eisenhower warned:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

It is true to say that "only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" can protect us from the excesses of the surveillance state. The wider public urgently needs to get informed about the ever growing surveillance network (CCTV is but one part) and start asking questions before yet more of their tax pounds are wasted on technologies that do little more than remove their freedoms. To this end No CCTV will shortly be announcing the creation of a National Anti-CCTV Strategy. Watch this space.

Posted in cctv general - 15/12/2009

BBC runs free prime-time advert for controversial CCTV game - 10/12/2009

On Monday night BBC1's 'Inside Out' programme threw away the broadcasting rule book and transmitted an advert on peak-time television for the Internet Eyes CCTV game. The advert was implanted in the magazine programme disguised as an item about surveillance cameras in London.

Inside Out's premise was that CCTV in London isn't working but that the UK business Internet Eyes Ltd has the solution - their internet game (with cash prizes). The programme then explained how Internet Eyes will work and how this will "revolutionise CCTV in the capital" by likening it to a border patrol citizen spy system in Texas, USA.

The views of the commercial venture Internet Eyes Ltd got the vast majority of air time whilst the views of unpaid anti CCTV campaigners received just 12 seconds - so much for the BBC's responsibility as a public service broadcaster to present both sides of the argument and not to take sides. (Section 44 of the BBC's agreement states: "The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output").

The BBC may claim that they did balance the argument as they did demonstrate the failings of CCTV - that is to say the selective failings on which Internet Eyes Ltd base their marketing! A few examples of claims made on the Internet Eyes website are: "all too often criminals get away with crime because although their activity is monitored by CCTV it is not observed at the time of the offence", "only one in 1,000 crime solved using CCTV", "CCTV cameras a waste of time no-one is watching". These same claims were presented by the BBC to promote the CCTV game as a solution.

In the programme the BBC follows one of Internet Eye's founders as he visits a newsagent in East London beset with problems of violence and racial abuse in his shop. The shop is fitted with private CCTV cameras but the incidents have continued - despite the CCTV.

The shopkeeper and his wife tell the programme that the police were not interested in viewing their CCTV footage or dealing with what the police considered minor incidents. Clearly this highlights problems with policing in their area. Mr Internet Eyes however wants to sell these poor people his service - allowing internet viewers to watch their shop and press a button when they see an incident. What the programme did not address is this very simple point - how will that help? If the newsagent is being attacked and an internet viewer sees it, then Internet Eyes will send an alert to the owner of that live camera feed, namely the newsagent - so basically as the newsagent is being attacked he will receive a text message telling him that he is being attacked! Then it is business as usual - the newsagent will contact the police who will decide if they want to investigate the matter. Hardly a revolution in crime reduction. Meanwhile the attack could easily find its way onto youtube for internet voyeurs the world over to watch the suffering of this poor couple as entertainment. How could the nonsense of this be missed by Inside Out? It would appear Mr Internet Eyes knew this all along as he tells the newsagent:

If you are in a situation where somebody comes in with maybe a gun or a machete like you've had - somebody on the screen will see this happening so ... you know, you can feel that at least somebody is doing something to help you.

Comparisons to US virtual border patrol

Perhaps the most stunning piece of misinformation was when the BBC looked at a virtual border patrol system in the US to show how a "similar scheme is already working". The virtual border patrol is part of 'Operation Border Star' and in March the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a report ('Operation Border Star: Wasted Millions and Missed Opportunities') which stated:

The virtual border surveillance program operates 13 cameras at this time and a publicly accessible website. Over the first six months of operation, only three arrests were made as a result of $2 million worth of technology.

The ACLU report goes on to point out:

Texas has spent federal grant dollars on technological experiments that have completely failed. The virtual border surveillance program has failed to meet any of the state's stated goals for the program, and according to federal law enforcement, may actually help the cartels avoid detection.

The virtual border patrol system has been highly controversial. In July a report on the 'Homeland Security News Wire' website, called 'Virtual border system ineffective, out of cash', documents the long list of problems and criticisms and reveals that: "in its first full year of operation failed to meet nearly every law enforcement goal."

Of course none of this is mentioned in the programme - which is keen to show us how clever they think the US system is. At one point the presenter tells us he has logged on to the Texas Virtual Border Watch website. Next we see him watching a video and he tells us: "There's a family here in a raft and it's amazing to think that by clicking a link here in London I can have border patrol go out and stop them". It really would be amazing - because the footage on the screen is from the BorderWatch Archives section of their website and is at least several months old (see cached version of the page from October 2009: http://tinyurl.com/cachedvideo-oct-2009).

Here in the UK, Internet Eyes is controversial even before it is launched. Last month No CCTV and Privacy International lodged a joint complaint with the Information Commissioners Office and a Stop Internet Eyes Facebook group has been set up. It is our hope that the Information Commissioner will see that Internet Eyes is a dangerous threat to privacy, breaches the Data Protection Act and should not be allowed to launch in the UK. The BBC did not mention this either.

The programme takes the view that CCTV doesn't work because nobody is watching the cameras, the film quality is too low and the cameras are not properly maintained. No mention of the fact that it doesn't work full stop, as evidenced by multiple substantive studies. One could be forgiven for thinking that the programme's researchers did no research whatsoever, given that they made no reference to any of the substantial published research on CCTV freely available to all who care to read it. No mention either, by the way, of the claimed trade-offs of freedoms for security, whereby in reality both are lost.

The fair and balanced BBC finished their report with more CCTV footage of an incident in the East London newsagent's and the tag line "But for the Kumars faced with this - a Big Brother that could protect couldn't come a moment too soon..". For those apparently all too few of us who care about freedom, the end of this programme couldn't come a moment too soon.

Inside Out can be viewed on BBC iplayer at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdz89/Inside_Out_London_07_12_2009/ in the UK until Monday 14th December.

BBC programme complaints can be lodged at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Posted in cctv general - 10/12/2009

CCTV in Scotland: Broken Record - 7/12/2009

A review of CCTV published by the Scottish government shows once again the ineffectiveness of surveillance cameras and like a broken record they have the same old solution - upgrade the surveillance camera network!

Two reports - a review of CCTV ('The Effectiveness of Public Space CCTV: A Review of Recent Published Evidence Regarding the Impact of CCTV on Crime') and recommendations for the future of CCTV ('Strategic Report on Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Public-Space CCTV in Scotland') have been published by the Scottish Parliament. A third report: 'Public Space CCTV In Scotland: Results of a National Survey of Scotland’s Local Authorities' has been published by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR).

It is this third report that most of the media has focused on as the Scottish government issued a press release 4th December ('CCTV "crucial" to crime fighting') that was uncritically published by Scottish newspapers. By releasing three reports on the same day and feeding the media a pre-written report that saves them wading through the data, the Scottish government has ensured that the public are once again ill informed with regards to CCTV, a point that ironically their reports highlight.

The Scottish government's review of the effectiveness of CCTV was essentially a review of several reviews, which we will now review.

The Scottish government did not commission any new research into surveillance cameras but instead discussed the findings of several existing reports. These reports include:

- 'The Cambridge Evaluation of the Effects of CCTV on Crime' [Farrington, Bennett, & Welsh (2007), Imagination for Crime Prevention: Essays in Honour of Ken Pease]
- 'What do murderers think about the effectiveness of CCTV?' [Gill, Spriggs, Little & Collins (2006). Journal of Security Education 2, (1), 11 – 17]
- Home Office Research Study 292: Assessing the Impact of CCTV [Gill & Spriggs (2005), Home Office Research
- 'Evaluation of the Devonport CCTV Scheme' [Goodwin V. (2002), AUS: Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council, Tasmania Police]
- 'Town centre CCTV: An examination of crime reduction in Gillingham' [Griffiths, M. (2003), University of Reading]

Notably they did not include the most recent evaluation of CCTV. The Campbell Collaboration Report 2008 (a meta-study of 41 CCTV evaluations) which found that "the evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing [...] did not have a significant effect on crime."

The Campbell Collaboration Report was published in December 2008. So why did the Scottish government not include it? An explanation may be found in the review's criticism of the 2002 evaluation by the same authors as the Campbell Collaboration Report (Welsh and Farrington):

Of all the literature reviewing CCTV, Welsh and Farrington (2002) only found 22 studies to include in their review which met these criteria [criteria for a valid evaluation, see * below], and the majority of these studies were conducted in the 1990’s. Since then, many technological advances have been made, which may have an impact on the effectiveness of CCTV in terms of crime prevention and reduction. It is therefore, important to review the results of more recent literature which may account for the effect of any improved advancements. The present review of the literature will only include studies that have been conducted since the year 2000.

The Campbell Collaboration report considered 92 evaluations of CCTV and found only 44 met their criteria for inclusion. Of those they rejected, 22 were since 2002! Of those that met the criteria for inclusion 23 of the 44 were since 2000. In other words the most recent and comprehensive review of CCTV that includes multiple post 2000 studies has been excluded from the review - could this be evidence of the Scottish government sexing up a report?

Amongst the findings the Scottish government review chose to highlight were:

page 2: Anecdotal evidence suggests there are many additional benefits of CCTV that go beyond any impact it may have on crime.

page 9: There is little evidence from the multi-evaluation carried out by Gill and Spriggs (2005) to suggest that CCTV effectively deters crime.

page 15: A small group of police respondents interviewed by Levesley and Martin (2005) also highlighted the negative effect of deployment to non-priority incidents through increased detection.

page 18: Through their series of laboratory experiments, Davies and Thasen (2000) found that identification of unfamiliar people from CCTV footage is a highly fallible process, and concluded that the practice of inviting unfamiliar individuals to compare the appearance of a CCTV image with that of the defendant should be avoided.

The review's conclusions include the following:

The 'effectiveness' of CCTV must be considered in light of its intended purpose, as each individual project is installed to serve its own purpose. That said, the rapid spread of CCTV across Britain over the last decade can largely be attributed to claims that have been made regarding the effectiveness of CCTV in terms of crime reduction, and because of this, CCTV evaluations have traditionally focussed on its impact on crime.
[...]
Overall, it would seem as though the impact of CCTV on crime has been variable.
[...]
Furthermore, the belief that CCTV alone will solve the problem of crime is unrealistic.

Confronted with multiple studies that highlight the failings of CCTV and the public's misplaced belief that CCTV has magical powers, the Scottish government believes that more research is needed. The same view has been repeated over and over again in England and Wales despite the fact that CCTV has been a feature of life in the UK since the late 1980s and reports showing its ineffectiveness have been produced for almost a decade. One wonders if the report writers would be calling for more research had the research to date given them the answer they appear to want, namely that CCTV is an effective crime fighting tool.

The second report released by the Scottish government contains recommendations for the future of CCTV in Scotland. This in many ways resembles 'The National CCTV Strategy' produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office in 2007.

The Scottish government's strategy recommends:

1.02 - Recommendation: Consideration should be given to the creation of a Scottish national CCTV group to develop and support best practice and partnership working across Scotland.

1.04 - Recommendation: A Scotland wide strategic approach should be developed that maximises the day to day operation and utilisation of public-space CCTV at a local level.

Having pointed out that:

The technical capability of CCTV is evolving so we must recognise that systems are developing 'artificial intelligence' and by using biometrics and digital rather than analogue platforms CCTV is no longer simply a resource to watch activities but is being developed as a predictor of behaviour and so has a potential role as an intervention tool.

The strategy recommends:

1.10 - Recommendation: The knowledge base and awareness of CCTV operations to these evolving technologies must be grown to ensure that the financial investment and public confidence in these systems is maximised.

1.26 - Recommendation: The ability to undertake live and historic cross LA [Local Authority]/ Police boundary searches particularly in response to serious crimes and terrorism should be a building block of any new system.

2.03 - Recommendation: The sustainable use of technology that can respond to peripatetic anti-social behaviour and crime is likely to become more important in helping to improve community safety, effectively manage incidents and tackle crime. Consequently, the use and availability of developing technologies of 3G telephony and WiFi should be given serious consideration for future CCTV growth/ replacement and monitoring centre investment.

The third report is mostly a collection of data about Scotland's CCTV (made up of the results of a survey of Scotland's local authorities). For instance it reveals:

- There are over 2,200 public space CCTV cameras in Scotland.
[...]
- Very few authorities undertake comprehensive evaluations of the effectiveness of public space CCTV systems.
- Over the period 2008 to 2010, the total cost of operating public space CCTV systems in Scotland can be expected to exceed £40 million.

On Automatic Number Plate recognition cameras it says:

In total there are 792 Public Space CCTV cameras capable of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) in Scotland. Although these cameras have ANPR capacity, only around 20% of them are currently used for this purpose. North Lanarkshire has the most ANPR-capable cameras

The survey once again calls for more research into the effectiveness of CCTV:

8.6 Given the variation in the strategic purposes to which CCTV is put (and is planned to be put) across Scotland, there appears to be value in a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of its application to these purposes, and following this, dissemination of best practice information among strategic planners and users of CCTV. Development of common practice and data recording would enable better performance management and evaluation of CCTV against the investment made in its provision.

Looking across all three reports - supposedly a comprehensive investigation of surveillance cameras in Scotland - there is no mention of common law, civil liberties or anonymity, and there is only a fleeting mention of privacy in the review document in relation to existing legislation/regulation. Clearly policy makers in Scotland have the same disdain for the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens as their counterparts in Westminster. Surely at this point in time, when the failings of CCTV cannot be denied and with calls for cuts to public expenditure, an investigation into surveillance cameras should look at the alleged trade-offs of security versus freedoms and costs. It is remarkable that once again faced with a mountain of evidence against the usefulness of CCTV the overriding message being sold to the public is "more CCTV"! Hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted on this failed experiment. It is time to roll back the experiment and use the money to actually reduce crime.

------

* Home Office Study 252 selection criteria - Welsh and Farrington only included studies that met strict methodological criteria:
"that CCTV was the main intervention studied;
that there was an outcome measure of crime;
that crime levels before and after the intervention were measured;
that the studies included a comparable control area."

Posted in cctv general - 7/12/2009

No CCTV's 'The Surveillance Society' video presentation - 15/11/2009

On 31st October No CCTV gave a presentation on 'The Surveillance Society' at the British Constitution Group's conference at the Friend's Meeting House, Euston Road London. The presentation, filmed by BBC5.tv - the UK based independent production collective, has now been posted online.

The presentation looks at many of the studies into the (in)effectiveness of CCTV, the National CCTV Strategy, where surveillance cameras are headed and what can be done to stop the surveillance state.

Part one of the presentation can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOuW5dTXJ30

Part two of the presentation can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2qrUl8LJCQ

A pdf of the presentation slides can be downloaded here.

Posted in cctv general - 15/11/2009

Complaint to ICO calls for halt to Internet Eyes CCTV game - 3/11/2009

No CCTV has teamed up with Privacy International to launch a joint complaint with the Information Commissioners Office regarding the Internet Eyes CCTV game. Both organisations received a number of complaints from members of the public concerned about the privacy implications of the Internet Eyes system.

Internet Eyes, which is due to launch this month in the UK, is a CCTV system whereby internet viewers watch random live CCTV feeds from businesses subscribed to the service with the promise of cash rewards for viewers that spot the most crimes.

No CCTV and Privacy International believe that Internet Eyes violates the Data Protection Act and have called on the Information Commissioner to take immediate action to prevent the launch of the service.

The complaint points out that Internet Eyes Ltd have no way of knowing who is viewing their images and they have no way of controlling where such images are stored or distributed. The complaint states:

What is to stop an internet viewer of the Internet Eyes system taking a screen grab or videoing images from a CCTV feed and then keeping those images permanently and distributing them as they see fit?

The Data Protection Act contains a number of exemptions relating to the handling of data for 'the administration of justice' but such exemptions require certain tests - which in the case of Internet Eyes are not met. Even if the tests had been met the exemptions should not be seen as a license to be reckless with personal data. Internet Eyes breaches at least five of the eight core principles contained in the Data Protection Act, it is incredible that the system has got as far as it has.

The complaint concludes:

The complaints that we have received in relation to Internet Eyes have expressed concerns about privacy in a far more wide reaching manner than the principles laid down in the Data Protection Act and we share the view of Desmond Browne QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, that in a country with a strong common law tradition it is the common law principles which govern protection of our privacy that we should all be working to uphold. In the meantime we hope that the Data Protection Act will hold as a first line of defence and prove strong enough to protect us from Internet Eyes and the very serious consequences of allowing this latest attempt to expand surveillance in Britain.

The full complaint is at: http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/materials/docs/ICO_complaint_internet_eyes.pdf

Posted in cctv general - 3/11/2009

ANPR - policing by consent? - 25/10/2009

A number of recent Freedom of Information requests relating to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems used by police in the UK raise serious concerns about where the technology is headed.

The latest Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 'ANPR Strategy for the Police Service - 2007/2010' reveals plans to make ANPR a "core policing tool" by 2010. The document states:

A number of key milestones have been identified within constituent projects for ANPR with an intention that these will support the embedding of ANPR into core police business be[sic] March 2010

A further illustration of the scale of ANPR in the UK was revealed in the answer to a parliamentary question last week about the National ANPR Data Centre (a national store for the ANPR data captured by police forces), the Home Secretary Alan Johnson explained:

The NADC is currently under development and test. There are 40 police forces [out of 43] now supplying data and all police forces will be doing so by the end of 2009.

But how on earth have ANPR cameras become "a core part of what the police service does on a day-to-day basis"? When was the issue debated, the public consulted and what legislation has been introduced to make this possible? To answer this we first need to look at the beginnings of ANPR expansion.

The ACPO strategy points out that: "'Project Laser' was the first pilot for greater use of ANPR that was conducted in 9 forces". More information can be found in a 2004 report 'ANPR - Driving Down Crime - Denying Crminals the Use of the Road' which details ANPR's humble beginning as "a great asset in tackling the ‘underclass’ of vehicles that are incorrectly registered, untaxed and uninsured". The report states:

In 2002, a number of police forces increased their use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems to include dedicated intercept officers. These officers were able to intercept and stop vehicles of interest identified by the ANPR systems and question the driver and/or passengers as appropriate.

The introduction to the 2004 report includes the following comment about the future of ANPR by then Home Secretary David Blunkett:

The experience gained in the pilot, highlighted by the evaluation work, is likely to lead to the introduction of ANPR enabling legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

So what "ANPR enabling legislation" was introduced and when?

To answer this we turn to two further Freedom of Information requests. The first request made to ACPO asked for "details of the statutory powers / Act(s) of Parliament under which ANPR cameras are installed and used as a 'core policing tool' throughout the UK" (see 'Details of statutory powers relating to ANPR'). The response states:

The use of ANPR merely provides information upon which officers may act. It does not require any legislation or statutory powers.

The second request asked for the same information from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) (see 'ANPR FOI'). The NPIA responded:

The use of ANPR cameras does not require any statutory powers or legislation.

How have we moved from requiring legislation when "Parliamentary time allows" to the country being covered with ANPR cameras, connected to a National ANPR Data Centre (NADC) and the police saying it is a core tool for day to day policing - without the need for any debate let alone statutory powers or primary legislation?

The expansion of ANPR raises serious questions about privacy and is another measure that calls into question the concept of policing by consent. Privacy is not about hiding bad things from the authorities, it is part of what defines life in a free country. Privacy requires a degree of anonymity and anonymity is not a crime. English common law is built upon a right to anonymity implicit in the right to go unchallenged provided you are not doing something specifically legislated against together with the presumption of innocence. Yet it is becoming increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to enjoy any meaningful sense of anonymity. Police ANPR cameras are linked to multiple databases that make it possible to obtain all sorts of information about a car and its owner. Moreover these databases contain errors - recently Vince Cable MP was stopped having been incorrectly flagged as driving without insurance.

It may be tempting to believe that ANPR is a way of clamping down on criminals, but, even if it were, a freedom removed from one is a freedom removed from all. The standard response of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" suggests that law abiding citizens do not deserve or need the right to privacy - surely they deserve it most.

Posted in cctv general - 25/10/2009

Internet Eyes and the privitisation of the surveillance society - 7/10/2009

A UK surveillance company is planning to launch an online CCTV watching website that could herald the privatisation of the surveillance state. 'Internet Eyes' will ask volunteers to watch random CCTV feeds of UK businesses subscribed to the service with the promise of cash rewards for viewers that spot the most crimes. This is a private company asking private individuals to spy on each other using private CCTV cameras.

The company behind the scheme is trying to capitalise on the scale of UK surveillance, the expense to the taxpayer and the ineffectiveness of cameras as a crime fighting tool by stating that: "There are 4.2 million cameras in the UK", that: "So far the British Government has spent £20 billion pounds on CCTV" and then stating that: "At least 90% of them are not being manned at any given time." The solution they claim is to get unpaid members of the public to watch the cameras and this will equate to "Increased crime detection = Greater deterrent = Reduction in stock loss".

What they have done here is mix up several issues and offer a solution that has nothing to do with any of them.

The 4.2 million cameras figure is an estimate of the total number of CCTV in the UK - those run by local authorities/police and those owned and run by private companies. The public money wasted on CCTV was spent on the local authority/police cameras. The vast majority of these cameras are constantly monitored by operators in police CCTV control rooms. It is these cameras that have been assessed for their effectiveness and been shown to "not have a significant effect on crime" (See Campbell Collaboration into the 'Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime' and others).

Much CCTV in small shops, businesses and schools is not constantly monitored. But why would asking untrained members of the public to watch this footage produce results any better than the poor results obtained by trained CCTV operators in police control rooms?

To bridge the gap between private and public surveillance cameras Internet Eyes has used a recent Metropolitan Police report on 'Operation Javelin' that we recently reported on (see 'Project Javelin - the future of CCTV?'). This report also blurred the division between public and private camera operation when it made reference to an estimated one million cameras in London when there are somewhere closer to 10,524 cameras run by local authorities and therefore under police control across the 32 London boroughs (according to figures released in 2007).

In the UK we are already the most spied upon population in the world but the police and now a private company are trying to exploit the failure of CCTV technology to ramp up the levels of surveillance yet further. An incredible response to an extremely costly failed project - costly in terms of both finance and freedoms.

The situation in the UK was summed up neatly by a comment posted on the Evening Standard Website following a report in 2007 that despite there being over 10,000 local authority cameras in London costing £200 million the crime clear up rates were poor. Gregg Scott of New York, United States wrote:

I'm not the smartest fellow on the planet but it would appear your country has traded liberty for security and lost both. Good luck to all of you - I pray that the few liberty loving people left will restart the engine of growth and liberty that my history books tell me England once was.

The company behind Internet Eyes believes that the way to improve life in the UK is for people to sit at home staring at a computer screen watching other people to see if they are committing a crime rather than going out onto the streets, getting to know and interacting with real people and maybe rebuilding communities. They claim that shopkeepers can reduce shoplifting by allowing internet voyeurs to spy on their customers when a far simpler way of dealing with someone you suspect may be shoplifting is to engage with that person, ask them if you can help them find what they need in a polite and friendly way - if they are a shoplifter they will leave, if they are not they will enjoy some personal attention. Of course Internet Eyes is a commercial venture and encouraging people to interact with each other isn't so good for the bottom line.

The concept of volunteers watching cameras is being presented as a new idea but even this isn't true. Several cash strapped councils around the country have started asking for volunteers to man their CCTV control rooms including Shoreditch, Cirencester, Dorset, Sudbury, Wick and there has even been another private company operating a volunteer camera system in Great Yarmouth since 2007. The difference here is that the cameras are private and the images are streamed over the internet.

When it comes to CCTV there are few legal protections. The main one is the Data Protection Act which has spawned a Code of Practice containing guidelines for retention of CCTV images. The code states: "You should not keep images for longer than strictly necessary to meet your own purposes for recording them". Most local authorities have a retention period of 30 days. How will Internet Eyes comply with even these limited protections when internet viewers can take a screen grab and store images on their computer indefinitely or distribute them as they see fit?

Indeed the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), the body that has limited powers to enforce the Data Protection Act has expressed some concern about this new venture. The ICO says:

it would not be appropriate to disclose images of identifiable individuals to the media for entertainment purposes or place them on the internet.

It may well be that Internet Eye's lawyers find a way around the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioners Office backs down as they did with Google Stret View. Sadly it may take some serious abuse of the system for there to be a legal challenge.

There has been much blog coverage of Internet Eyes including: Notes from the ubiquitous surveillance society which looks at the end of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) and the emergence of Open-Circuit Television (OCTV) surveillance, and Application Security which explains that the website for citizens spies "is insecure itself" as the registration pages do not use encryption (SSL).

Internet Eyes is a worrying and disturbing addition to the surveillance industrial complex and yet another reason why we need an urgent debate about the sort of society we are creating before it is too late.

Posted in cctv general - 7/10/2009

Project Javelin - the future of CCTV? - 14/9/2009

The Metropolitan Police internal report that was behind media stories of CCTV solving just one crime per 1000 cameras in London has now been released to the wider public under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. As usual the mainstream media did not get to the heart of the issues raised by the report. Below is a selection of articles:

The Independent - 24/8/09
The Telegraph - 25/9/09
Daily Mail - 25/9/09
Daily Express - 25/9/09
The Sun - 25/9/09

The heavily redacted report (supplied in several versions and we are told "intended for internal discussion" containing "unqualified statements, statistics and personal opinion") relates to a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) programme known as Operation Javelin – 'Catching Criminals Caught on Camera' but the above articles focused primarily on just one part of the report that states:

Op Javelin estimates that there are around one million cameras in London. Despite this, in 2008 less than 1000 crimes were solved using CCTV.

The shocking point the media missed is the number of cameras from which the police are able to obtain images. We know, thanks to a 2007 Freedom of Information request, that at that time there were 10,524 cameras run by local authorities and therefore under police control across the 32 London boroughs. The report however refers to an estimated one million cameras - acknowledging the fact that the police are also able to obtain footage from public transport and privately run cameras. At a conference in Bristol in 2007 the author of the Javelin report pointed out "more and more police head-cams are being introduced and are also likely to be used by others such as door staff and even lollipop ladies. Mobile phones also represent an 'enormous harvest' of potential crime suspects caught on camera" (reported in CCTV Image magazine November 2007). Effectively a surveillance footage land grab.

The October 2007 National CCTV Strategy suggested that police should be able to gain access to cameras outside their remit via network access:

Consideration should also be given to the police, with the consent of individual users having limited and prescribed network access to smaller CCTV systems, to allow them to investigate crimes carried out against those users, in their own premises, such as investigating a robbery at a local shop, or a burglary at a commercial premises. [p 35]

A National CCTV Strategy Board has now been set up and there are plans to: "Develop a system of registration that assists in the regulation of CCTV systems" (National CCTV Strategy Recommendation R3.6). Salford City Council has been leading the way in expanding the number of cameras available to police using a system of registration and mapping (currently voluntary). It seems likely that the National CCTV Strategy Board will expand such registration systems under the cover of the much called for regulation of CCTV thus facilitating a massive expansion of the surveillance state. The Javelin report further states: "Home Office / ACPO are promoting mapping of CCTV - VIIDOs can greatly assist as they have ownership and need to know location of cameras for their daily work".

Studies that have looked at the effectiveness of CCTV in the UK have shown that it is not an effective crime fighting tool and increasingly we are hearing of local authorities misusing surveillance powers granted to them under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Yet the solution that is being touted is to increase the surveillance network and unquestioningly trust the state. As Clive Norris and Gary Armstrong wrote in their 1999 study of the rise of CCTV in the UK 'The Maximum Surveillance Society': "while it may only be a cynic who questions the benign intent of their current rulers, it would surely be a fool who believed that such benevolence is assured in the future". Is the solution to the failure of CCTV really to expand its use?

According to the operation Javelin report if CCTV is used more effectively it will "significantly assist the public confidence target". So what is Operation Javelin? The FOI response explains the make up of the pilot operation which "remains constantly under review":

operation Javelin incorporates two strands, the VIIDO [Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office] retrieval and production stage and the Met Cu [Met Circulation Unit] circulation stage. The MPS have made significant progress in the CCTV systems and process field and now have 11 dedicated VIIDO units across the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] with a further 5 being considered for role (sic) out.

Operation Javelin was developed by DCI Mick Neville, the police officer who in 2008 famously said that the use of CCTV in the UK was an "utter fiasco". Neville worked alongside DS Steve Hubbard to set up the first VIIDO unit at Southwark Police Station in September 2007. VIIDO officers gather CCTV evidence which they take back to their VIIDO unit where they retrieve still images from the footage which are then submitted to the Met Circulation Unit (who's catchphrase is "The Met CU") who upload the images to an intranet called 'Caught on Camera'. According to an article published in the April 2008 edition of the Police Federation magazine Police:

Officers from all the divisions are encouraged to log onto 'Caught on Camera' and help identity the offenders. One police station is even paying its officers money as an incentive to identify offenders while they are off duty.

The Police Federation magazine article also explained that Neville believes CCTV should be treated as a forensic science in a similar way to DNA and fingerprint evidence:

He explained that while fingerprint evidence is stored on a national database, there is no such system for CCTV and so what has developed is a piecemeal approach to an area of policing he predicts will become the "third forensic discipline" in the next few years.

Here mention is made of the lack of a centralised CCTV database and the Operation Javelin report also refers to the need for a CCTV database in relation to the Met Circulation Unit when it states that "Additional staff and a database for images are urgently required". There is further reference to a CCTV database with relation to the forthcoming Olympics in London and the £600m budget for "additional policing and wider security for the Games" announced by Government in March 2007:

Olympics - the database would assist security (£600 million budget)

To get the picture of where this is heading, you need look no further than the National CCTV Strategy:

It is hoped, in future, as technology is developed, that such a network will allow the use of automated search techniques (i.e. face recognition) and can be integrated with other systems such as ANPR, and police despatch systems [...] [p 36]

The National CCTV Strategy also pushes the categorisation of CCTV as a forensic discipline akin to DNA and fingerprints:

The amount of money invested in the recovery and analysis of fingerprints and DNA is substantial and contrasts significantly with the resources invested in the recovery and analysis of CCTV evidence. Every force has a number of trained Crime Scene Investigators (CSIs) and additional funding was provided by the Home Office to develop every force’s capacity to recover and analyse DNA from volume crime scenes.

There is a need for the police service to determine the most appropriate model for managing the recovery and analysis of CCTV evidence. Consistency of approach will allow for national standards to be developed and applied and will assist in determining the skills and training required to support those who undertake the role. Whether CCTV recovery and analysis becomes another forensic discipline or sits within a High Tech Crime Unit has yet to be determined. However, without an appropriate model of delivery and management structure, the recovery and analysis of CCTV is likely to remain an ad hoc function that is under resourced and consequently less operationally effective.

A further reflection of the desire to treat CCTV evidence like DNA and fingerprints can be seen in the Policing and Crime Bill currently making its way through parliament. The bill contains proposals to give powers to the Home Secretary to introduce regulations relating to the retention, use and destruction of DNA, fingerprints and CCTV/ANPR images following the recent European Court of Human Rights decision relating to DNA retention. Such regulations would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or debate. These new powers have been criticised by Dr Chris Pounder of Amberhawk law training in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

it appears to be a little disingenuous to promote a New Clause with a claim that its objective is to resolve a serious breach of Article 8 re DNA, and slip in, without any announcement, a subtle definitional change that extends surveillance via the use and retention of ANPR and CCTV images. I think this kind of "double dealing" can only undermine public trust in the political process.

CCTV has been in use longer that DNA. Why has it not been deemed to be a forensic science before now? Perhaps because CCTV is not a science, it is nothing more than an eye-witness and open to interpretation. Indeed this fact was acknowledged when cine film footage was used by police in Chesterfield in 1935 but was not admissible in court because it was viewed as unsubstantiated hearsay. How have attitudes to CCTV changed so drastically?

As ever the debate surrounding CCTV focuses on how we can make it established, how we can completely formalise it, regulate it, make it acceptable and not about whether we should have such widespread use of surveillance cameras at all. We urgently need a proper debate into the surveillance state and the society we are creating before marching headlong towards the establishment of an expanded and networked surveillance camera system linked to databases and granted the status of perceived infallibility known as forensic science.

Posted in cctv general - 14/9/2009

Hounslow CCTV expansion: promise or threat? - 1/9/2009

A recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request published on the web reveals details of Hounslow council's "Promise 10" - a plan to spend £1.8 million of residents' money on a new CCTV network. A promise that looks a lot like a threat.

Hounslow council has a plan that they describe as "a single vision of what needs to be achieved by 2010 for all communities in the borough". The Hounslow Plan 2006-2010 is laid out in a document called 'Building Pride Borough Wide'. Like many councils around the country Hounslow want to "transform" the area they govern. They aim to do this by implementing the plan, which they describe to residents as "our 'contract' with you, the residents, businesses and partners of the Borough". The plan contains ten promises. Promise Ten states:

10. Introduce CCTV to more parts of the Borough.

Incredibly, Hounslow has put CCTV expansion in their top ten list alongside investing in parks, libraries and leisure centres, planting trees, weekly rubbish collection and building affordable homes. The 'Building Pride Borough Wide' document states:

You want local taxes used wisely and invested in improving local services, local facilities and the quality of life for all Borough residents, wherever they live and whether young, old, part of a family or single.

Surely Promise 10 contradicts the council's vision of wisely invested local taxes. Study after study has shown that CCTV is not an effective crime fighting tool. Now is the time to acknowledge that the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money wasted on CCTV could and should have been better spent. Now is the time to give back to law abiding residents the freedoms that were taken away by the introduction of surveillance cameras. Now is not the time to upgrade cameras and expand surveillance networks. Hounslow council does not agree.

A 5th May 2009 report on Promise 10 by Hounslow councils's Lead Member for Community Safety states:

The Council has agreed to commit £1.8million towards this promise [Promise 10]. £770K has already been allocated for 2009-10. To begin to fulfill the promise a community safety CCTV control room needs to be built and cameras sited in areas of the borough where incidence of crime per capita is the highest.

In 2007 members of the London Assembly obtained information about surveillance cameras in the London boroughs along with crime clear up rates. It was revealed that Hounslow had 482 CCTV cameras at that time and a crime clear up rate of 21.4%. Hillingdon had just 137 cameras and a crime clear up rate of 22.5%. What the figures showed was that more CCTV cameras don't lead to a better crime clear-up rate. These findings seems of little consequence to Hounslow council as they prepare to sink yet more money into cameras.

The Promise 10 report goes on to describe the capabilities of the cameras that Hounslow council are considering installing:

Automatic number plate reader (ANPR). This could be installed on the cameras on the borough's main thoroughfares and on some of the portable cameras. This assists police in identifying vehicles that are of interest, and therefore enhance proactive operations,
Facial recognition. This could be used in the town centers [sic], particularly so where they are hotspots for criminal activity. Like ANPR, it will assist in identifying both subjects of interest to Police and partners.
Thermal imaging. This could be used on fixed cameras in parks and open spaces and some of the portable cameras. This will clearly assist in searches of open spaces for suspects and missing persons.
Speaker enabled. This could be added to town centre cameras. Trials and use show that when operators communicate through speakers to suspects that they can diffuse situations and prevent crime. Speakers can also provide a greater sense of security for pedestrians and those alone. Any audio capabilities will be one way only i.e. Operator enabled only

Hounslow council clearly has no regard for the freedoms or civil liberties of local residents and tax payers. ANPR and facial recognition cameras allow the tracking of individuals. When linked to databases - such as the DVLA database or in the case of facial recognition cameras perhaps in the future they could be linked to the planned National Identity Register - they become automated checkpoints that remove the right to anonymity and treat everyone as a suspect. Speaker enabled cameras undermine a sense of community by replacing mutual self policing with faceless camera operators barking orders at people. The Hounslow plan uses the PRIDE acronym made up of People, Respect, Improve, Dialogue and Empower. How can a surveillance grid like the one they want to construct be about pride or respect. It is about distrust, disrespect, fear and control.

Of course Hounslow council says that this is what residents want and the report even offers some reassurance for those that might not be so keen on total surveillance:

The vast majority of the residents of Hounslow are used to seeing CCTV cameras in a variety of locations across the borough and following presentation at the initial stages of this project, most are very supportive of the idea. To mitigate against individuals/groups that are not in favour of CCTV systems, consideration will be given to clearly marking the cameras as `community safety cameras', and have a contact number available for these wishing to enquire as to ownership and purpose. This will also ensure compliance with the CCTV Code of Practice issued by the Information Commissioner.

How an earth does Hounslow council think that putting a sign up that says `community safety cameras' will allay the concerns of those opposed to the surveillance state? Clearly they, like many other councils and public bodies, do not understand the fundamental objections to surveillance technologies.

We urgently need to reassess the use of CCTV cameras in the UK. Councils should have to present a coherent proven need for cameras backed up with evidence of their effectiveness. The public should be made aware of the shortcomings of surveillance cameras before the new generation of cameras further erodes our freedoms.

No CCTV will continue to offer a counterbalance to the one sided CCTV evangelism that still dominates public discourse and assist residents who want to challenge surveillance cameras in their communities - and that is a promise!

Posted in cctv general - 1/9/2009

Silly Season, Schools and CCTV - 20/8/2009

It's the silly season once again - the news void manufactured by mainstream media each summer into which ludicrous drivel is duly injected. This year CCTV hit the silly headlines when the Daily Express declared that Ed Balls, the Secretary for Children, Schools and Families, had announced CCTV was to be installed in the homes of 20,000 families in the UK. The story dated 23rd July stated that:

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

The story is ridiculous but this is the UK, the surveillance capital of the world, and so the story was picked up by blogs and media around the world. It took until 4th August, a full 11 days after the Express story, for the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to deny the story. Also on 4th August Ed Balls tweeted: "the idea we are planning to put CCTV in families' homes is complete and total nonsense".

So how did the Express get their story?

On 22nd July a joint press release ('Government calls for tough family intervention to prevent youth crime') was issued by the Home Secretary (Alan Johnson), the Justice Secretary (Jack Straw) and the Children, Schools and Families Secretary (Ed Balls) upon the release of a report Youth Crime Action Plan - One Year On.

In the press release Balls talked about Family Intervention Projects:

Family Intervention Projects constantly confront and challenge the parents and children they work with to change their behaviour. The families know that if they don't use this support they could risk losing their home, go to court, prison or youth custody. We have already got tough on over 2000 families in the last year, preventing them from committing more serious offences. That’s why the Home secretary and I are writing to all local authorities to get them to step up their actions by expanding and accelerating FIPs in their areas.

Perhaps the Express took two and two and came up with five. Perhaps there is more to be found in the document that the three musketeers were launching. Upon closer inspection this innocent sounding puff piece does indeed contain some disturbing proposals.

In their quest to drive down youth crime the government is encouraging schools to team up with the police and form 'Safer School Partnerships'. These sound uncannily like the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP) set up in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and extended in the Police Reform Act 2002. Indeed the 'Youth Crime Action Plan - One Year On' lays out the relationship between these two types of partnership when it says:

Local partnerships (such as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Children’s Trusts) are best placed to know how to make this happen in their local areas, and to decide how to resource partnerships. Over the next year, we will ensure that parents know how they can ask for a review of whether a Safer School Partnership would be appropriate for their school.

It is interesting that as the use of CCTV in schools is expanding these partnerships are being proposed that will have links to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, who just happen to be the bodies that the National CCTV Strategy Board want to empower with regards to surveillance cameras:

Primacy in relation to CCTV should be determined at a local level by the CDRP, taking into account the strategic guidance provided by the strategy and the National Strategic Board.
[ National CCTV Strategy recommendation 10.5 ]

The 'Youth Crime Action Plan - One Year On' report also says that:

Our vision is that every school that wants one should be part of a Safer School Partnership, subject to local resources.

The blurb relating to Safer School Partnerships (SSP) makes schools sound like high security prisons. The Youth Justice System website says:

SSPs provided a focused approach to address the high level of crime and anti-social behaviour committed in and around schools in some areas – crime committed by and against children and young people.

Broader benefits have since been recognised by everyone involved, including improved community cohesion, a stronger sense of citizenship among children, and an increased quality of life and opportunities for young people, their families and the wider community around the school.

The government it seems is trying to impose top down, state sanctioned communities - a ridiculous concept. Communities cannot be legislated into existence, they form organically through relationships between people.

A report into SSPs lists some very strange objectives such as "Support vulnerable children and young people through periods of transition, such as the move from primary to secondary school".

The department for children, schools and families ia also currently consulting on proposals for Home Education - registration and monitoring. The report to Ed Balls that accompanies the consultation recommends:

That the DCSF establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all children of statutory school age, who are, or become, electively home educated.

How long before the government sets up Safer Home partnerships? Then perhaps they will propose that CCTV cameras are installed in the houses of home educating families - oh no wait, that's how we started this!

The expansion of school CCTV was the subject of a recent Guardian report ('Schools are increasingly installing CCTV cameras in classrooms', Guardian 4/8/09). The Guardian story mentions Stockwell Park high school in London that has 100 cameras (soon to be increased to 200). The cameras are supplied by CameraWatch who claim that school CCTV is training tool that drives up teaching standards!

The headmaster of Harrop Fold comprehensive school in Salford, that has installed cameras and microphones in classrooms, thrusts the Guardian report into the silly season stratosphere when he claims that the percentage of pupils achieving five GCSEs with grades of A*-C has grown from 18% to 52% and that the cameras have made a "very significant" contribution to the rise.

Astounding. So CCTV can now fight crime, train teachers and increase exam pass rates! ClassWatch claims that they have been cleared to surveill schools by Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidelines. Trouble is that schools like Stockwell high are not using CCTV for training purposes - their headmaster told BBC London that they only use the cameras for behavioural purposes. The ICO guidelines state:

[...] The ICO stress that constant filming and sound recording is likely to be unacceptable unless there is a pressing need - for example, if there is an ongoing problem of assaults or criminal damage.

* The ICO agree that one person's prank is another person's distressing incident but constant video monitoring of all children in a class cannot be justified in their view with reference to the need to address classroom disruption.

As often is the case silly season newspaper articles can mask serious issues. Journalists should be holding politicians and policy makers to account and unearthing information. In the Express story Ed Balls is quoted but no details are given of where he was speaking or the name of a document where more information can be found. The media used to be viewed as the fourth estate of our parliamentary system but nowadays they are used by politicians and spin doctors to spread propaganda and test new ideas. The only way to understand what is really going on is to do the research yourself.

Posted in cctv general - 20/8/2009

BBC breaches charter with one sided CCTV debate - 13/8/2009

Last night (12th August) Radio 4's Reality Check programme looked at the growth of surveillance in the UK. Among the topics discussed was CCTV and specifically newly installed cameras along the Cowley Road, East Oxford. Reality Check is described as "a discussion series involving experts and people closely involved in the issues".

No CCTV has had an active campaign in Oxford fighting the installation of the Cowley Road cameras since October 2007. If you type "CCTV Cowley Road" into any internet search engine then No CCTV will be listed at or near the top of sites found. No CCTV produced a comprehensive report into the Cowley Road CCTV scheme and appears to be the only campaign group in the UK taking a strong and principled stand against surveillance cameras. Yet the BBC did not invite us to take part in the programme. The result was a mix of pro CCTV propoganda and lies.

The panel selected to discuss surveillance in the UK was: Oxford's CCTV poster girl Jan Bartlett who owns the Premier Lettings agency on Cowley Road, Thames Valley Assistant Chief Constable Nick Gargan (former Chair of the ACPO Peer Review Group looking at legislation and guidance in relation to covert investigation), Isabella Sankey (policy director of Liberty), Dr Ian Brown (Senior Research Fellow at Oxford Internet Institute), Dave Cairns (a private sector surveillance consultant) and Martin Denholm whose son's DNA was taken by the police even though he was never convicted or charged with an offence.

The programme opened with the host Justin Rowlatt being shown the cameras near the Manzil Way play area on the Cowley Road. Jan Bartlett explained the life changing impact that CCTV has had since the cameras were installed in January:

What we've noticed is since the cameras have been up it's just been fantastic. As you can see peole can sit here safely now. You could not have done that six months ago and now we can come out here at lunchtime, the children are safe, we used to see all sorts of weirdos hanging around here watching the children play which is really really worrying.

Here Bartlett has to do down the Cowley Road in order to justify the installation of surveillance cameras. By over stating the levels of crime before cameras whilst we hear the sounds of children playing happily on the street today, the listener is invited to imagine a world transformed by the magic of CCTV. No one on the programme is able to challenge this vision and so CCTV is presented as an effective crime fighting tool and creator of utopia.

Advocates of CCTV used this tactic of doing down the Cowley Road repeatedly in the run up to cameras being installed. Local media, who were strongly in favour of cameras, described the road as "Oxford's most crime-ridden street" - a claim simply not supported by crime data or the experiences of people who live in the area. The Cowley Road was not a crime ridden no go area. It has the same friendly laid back atmosphere now that it had before surveillance cameras were introduced.

Next, safely inside a community centre where the other panel members are gathered, Rowatt, seemingly forgetting Bartlett's previous gushing praise for the cameras, asks her whether she thinks the Cowley Road cameras have worked. Bartlett responds:

Yeah definitely. There's proof within the police figures they've worked, there's proof within the way the public are behaving that they've worked, the whole area is more pleasant, the park area, which is the one that I showed you earlier, is what it's supposed to be now not a haven for drugs and sex and drink.

Bartlett once again paints a picture for the viewer of the post camera heaven versus the pre camera hell. Once again no one is there to challenge her story. This time it appears that Bartlett has facts to back up her claim. Police figures show that the cameras work she tells the listeners. No one challenges this statement because no one else on the programme appears to know anything about the crime figures.

Bartlett's claims are based on Oxford Mail article 'Cowley Road crime falls under CCTV's gaze' (Oxford Mail, 19/4/09). Our previous blog article 'CCTV makes crime go up' was a parody of this article. The Mail obtained recorded crime data under the Freedom of Information Act that showed a very small drop in certain crimes from January to March 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. We have that data and it shows what the Mail forgot to mention - that there was a small rise in certain other crimes such as: Administering a Substance with intent, Affray, Breach of ASBO, Burglary in A Dwelling, Burglary other than in A Dwelling, Child Protection (Non Crime Incident), Possesion of Firearms Offences and Racially Aggravated Criminal Damage To Vehicles (click here to read the full FOI crime data obtained by the Mail).

The change in recorded crimes is simply too small to claim it has any significance whatsoever. To analyse the effect of the cameras a larger data set would be required together with data for a control area (a similar area without CCTV for the same period). In addition any other crime interventions would need to be taken into account. Since the cameras were installed on the Cowley Road the policing along the road has also changed (following a study into anti-social behaviour) and now the police have introduced patrols wearing bodycams in the area. The cameras on the Cowley Road are meant to have been installed as part of a two year trial but by introducing changes to policing and other interventions the police are making it impossible for a fair and balanced trial to take place. There is also no clearly methodology in place for such a trial (as revealed under a recent Freedom of Information request).

But of course Radio 4 listeners weren't told about the actual crime data or the other changes to policing made along the Cowley Road.

Having established a strong pro CCTV stance Reality Check now move on to Isabella Sankey of Liberty who points out that:

It's really important that people feel safe in their communities and I think the problem with this debate is that it can get quite polarised.

Yes indeed - Sankey must be cranking up to destroy Bartlett's paper thin defence of CCTV and really polarise this debate. Sankey continues:

Now at Liberty we are not against CCTV, in fact I don't think many people in this country are against CCTV, but one of the things we've seen over the last ten years is a massive expansion in the number of cameras that we have. At the same time we've seen very little regulation of the use of CCTV and it's operation, so you won't find CCTV in any statute.

Oh dear. Here Liberty declare their pro CCTV position but also use the politician's trick of projecting that opinion out to the vast majority of people, suggesting there is little opposition. But Sankey is in Oxford where there is an active campaign against the very cameras that Bartlett loves so much. Next Sankey suggests that CCTV would be okay if there were more regulations. Regulation of surveillance cameras does not address the fundamental issues of privacy or common law rights of law abiding citizens - it will simply add legitimacy to ever expanding CCTV.

Next to speak is Assistant Chief Constable Gargan who is asked whether cameras help prevent crime. It is no surprise that Gargan thinks they do, he says:

Their performance in preventing crime is pretty clear, their performance in detecting crime is really very clear indeed and ... er ... we in the police hear, accross the United Kingdom, we hear from communities who want to have these cameras, they know that they'll make them safer but they certainly make communities feel safer too and we will do what the community asks us to do. If the community asks for cameras we'll support the installation of cameras. If the community doesn't want them we wouldn't force them on a community that didn't feel the need for them. We think they work.

So it's a police decision then is it? We were under the impression that local councils were responsible for decisions relating to surveillance cameras - as are local councillors. That said, in East Oxford the decision making powers were indeed removed from the local area parliament (whose meetings are public) and re-emerged in the Safer Oxford Community Partnership, an unelected body comprised of police, emergency services, primary care trust and allegedly some councillors and self-selecting members of neighbourhood action groups - whose minutes are not published and meetings take place in private... In addition in 2007 the then Oxford police chief Supt Brendan O'Dowda made it his personal crusade to get CCTV cameras installed along the Cowley Road. How is this listening to the community?

But back to Gargan. This is the same Assistant Chief Constable Gargan that told the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee 'A Surveillance Society?' inquiry:

Having spent many a long and, frankly, boring hour watching CCTV coverage live in town centres and city centres, it is amazing how little impact they seem to have on the behaviour of all but a very few individuals who are very conscious of the cameras and play up to those cameras.
[ See 'A Surveillance Society?' report, Evidence volume, page Ev 95]

And the same Assistant Chief Constable Gargan who gave evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee alongside Deputy Chief Constable Graeme Gerrard (ACPO lead on CCTV) when Gerrard told the committee:

Interestingly, there is very little academic research on the effectiveness and usefulness of CCTV in the investigation of crime, most of it is focused on does it reduce crime, not what is the impact of it in terms of investigating crime.
[ See 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State: Evidence, page 60 ]

The reality is that the performance of CCTV in preventing crime is pretty clearly abysmal. Several studies have confirmed this. The recent Campbell Collaboration evaluation of CCTV found: "the evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing [...] as well as those focused on public transport, did not have a significant effect on crime". London Assembly members obatined crime clear up data for the 32 London Boroughs to see if there was any corellation between CCTV cameras and crime clear up rate - there was not. The argument about CCTV reducing the fear of crime has been touted since the 1990s when cameras were first rolled out across the UK but when the Scottish Centre for Criminology conducted their research they found that this also was not true.

But Radio 4 listeners were not presented with this information.

At this point Dr Ian Brown tried to bring a touch of reason into the debate by referring to some of the studies into the effectiveness of CCTV, Brown said:

If you look at the few large scale studies that have been done to see - well actually do they have a big impact on crime? Actually by and large they don't, except in some very specific circumstances such as covered car parks, they tend to only really reduce crime by about two or three percent, whereas the government's own figures show that better street lighting for example can reduce it by 20% is much cheaper and is much less intrusive.

But alas it was too little too late. The tone has been set by Bartlett and her heart wrenching story of a community transformed. Rowlatt put it to Bartlett that Brown was suggesting criminals aren't detered by the cameras. Bartlett springs back into attack responding:

Well I'm sorry but I can tell you I live and work where those cameras are. I mix with those people every day and for the last five years, up until those cameras were installed, I've been in the area 30 years, the last five years we lived in fear and we put up with hell somedays. We don't have that anymore, you're telling me it's a coincidance that those lovely cameras went up and all of a sudden our life is regained. We've got our park back, we've got our streets back.

More unsubstantiated pro camera vitriol and time for Liberty to come back into the debate - Sankey finishes the job off:

I wouldn't say for a second that that's necessarily a coincidence. I think what's interesting about your case is that it was the community that came together and decided that they wanted cameras and they decided where those cameras would be most effective, I think that's a really important ...

At this point all the programme's claims to be a Reality Check or to involve "people closely involved in the issues" didn't just go out of the window but into the next universe. The policy director of Liberty, who does not live in Oxford, is not part of that community, and is not against CCTV, tells the Radio 4 audience that this CCTV scheme is particularly good because the community wanted it! Liberty clearly didn't do their homework either - nobody from Liberty contacted No CCTV before the programme or bothered to find out the views of "the community". No CCTV has campaigned along the Cowley Road and the vast majority of people we have spoken to in the community have been against the cameras. Local Green councillors tell us that they have received no letters in support of the CCTV cameras only letters against. Once again none of this was reported in the programme.

We are often told that the BBC has a responsibility as a public service broadcaster to present both sides of the argument and to not take sides. Section 44 of the BBC's charter agreement states:

The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output

In this programme that was clearly not the case and they are in breach of their charter. The Cowley Road was also featured in a recent BBC television programme 'The truth about crime' which was recorded before and as the cameras were installed. Once again the pro CCTV view was represented. 'The truth about crime' did interview No CCTV but the footage did not feature in the broadcast programme. Clearly there are a lot of people working hard to ensure that the Cowley Road cameras stay in and the BBC it seems is playing its part.

The programme is available to listen to on BBC iplayer until 19th August.

BBC programme complaints can be lodged at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
The programme's presenter Justin Rowlatt can be contacted at justin.rowlatt@bbc.co.uk

Posted in cctv general - 13/8/2009

Definitely true fact - CCTV makes crime go up! - 1/8/2009

The Daily Twaddle reports (a parody based on fact):

Crime in Oxford’s Cowley Road soared in the first two months after controversial CCTV cameras were switched on. Three cameras, which we should mention can rotate to give a full 360 degree view, went live on 19th January.

Figures and stuff obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that crime figures and stuff on the Cowley Road soared in the first two months of operation of the cctvs because of the spy cameras and no other reason - we know this because numbers never lie (except the number two, which is simply duplicitous).

The cameras have been declared an unwelcome burden on the East Oxfordshire community.

A police chief Inspector said: "I used to think CCTV could be used as part of an overall policing response in terms of tackling crime, reducing crime and public safety and reassurance.

"But now I know that I was wrong.

"It is a waste of money and I feel uneasy about the unnecessary removal of freedoms of law abiding citizens. Although obviously we don't have time to waste spying on ordinary folk, we only spy on real criminals and people who could be criminals and people who look like they might be criminals, and foreigners. And people who look like foreigners. And, when the need arises, everyone else."

The £340,000 security cameras operate in three locations along East Oxford's Cowley Road and did we mention yet that they can be rotated 360 degrees and all sorts of other stuff which is fun to play with if you are in the cctv control room.

Below is a table of recorded offences between 19th January and 19th March 19 2008 compared with the same recorded offences in 19th January and 19th March 2009 (after surveillance cameras were installed), which shows crime rocketed:

Actual FOI figures obtained by Oxford Mail April 2009 (% increase since cctv added)
Classification	Total 2008	Total 2009	% increase since cctv
Administering a Substance with intent	0	1	Infinity %
Affray	1	2	100%
Breach of ASBO	0	3	Infinity %
Burglary in A Dwelling	1	8	700%
Burglary other than in A Dwelling	1	4	300%
Child Protection (Non Crime Incident)	0	1	Infinity %
Dangerous Driving	0	1	Infinity %
Drunk and Disorderly	0	1	Infinity %
Fraud by False Representation	0	2	Infinity %
Handling/Receiving Stolen Goods	1	2	100%
Possesion of Firearms Offences	0	1	Infinity %
Racially Aggravated Crim. Damage To Vehcs	0	1	Infinity %
Racist Incident (Non Recordable Crime)	0	2	Infinity %
Shoplifting	6	19	217%
Theft from a Dwelling	0	1	Infinity %
Theft or Unauthorised Taking of Pedal Cycle	10	11	10%

A local businessman said: "Time will tell whether local residents wake up and realise that they have traded their freedoms for nothing!"

Judith Talkalot, owner of a local business, said: "The results are really embarrassing.

"I was a strong advocate for cctv and I feel responsible for the installation of these cameras. Our area is no safer for my staff and members of the public but ordinary people can now be tracked as they go about their daily business. I'm really embarrassed and will not be happy until the surveillance cameras come down. I apologise to the people of East Oxford for my unquestioning support of unproven technology."

Campaign group No CCTV said: "Clearly this story is a parody and the above claim that CCTV increases crime is unfounded based on these figures alone. However the Oxford Mail article 'Cowley Road crime falls under CCTV's gaze' (Oxford Mail, 19/4/09) claiming crime had fallen is equally unfounded as it was equally based on a selective reading of exactly the same very narrow set of crime statistics. Proper analysis of the effectiveness of CCTV requires a larger data set, a control area for comparison and consideration of other factors that may affect crime. Previous studies of cctv systems conducted in this way have repeatedly shown that cameras are not an effective crime fighting tool. It has been stated that the surveillance cameras along the Cowley Road in East Oxford have been installed for a two year trial, yet there have been no assurances that a fair and balanced study is being conducted and with advocates like the Oxford Mail the public are likely to believe that they have traded their freedoms and their taxes for reduced crime, when in fact they will have done no such thing."

Posted in cctv general - 1/8/2009

National CCTV Agenda creeps forward - 24/7/2009

The National CCTV Strategy, published in 2007, has started to move into its implementation phase. In May documents were published on the Home Office's crime reduction website that show the recommendations within the strategy have been assigned to a number of National CCTV Strategy Board subgroups tasked with implementing the plan.

When the strategy was published it received little attention outside the CCTV industry. Mainstream media only picked up on the statement in the strategy that:

Anecdotal evidence suggests that over 80% of the CCTV footage supplied to the police is far from ideal, especially if it is being used for primary identification or identities are unknown and identification is being sought, for instance, by media release.
[National CCTV Strategy, 2.2.2. Picture Quality, page 12]

What the media missed was that such statements were being used to upgrade and expand the surveillance network in the UK.

The National CCTV Strategy was produced by the Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) but the implementation phase, like ANPR, is being carried out by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) which was created in April 2007 under powers in the Police and Justice Act 2006, according to the NPIA website "to make a unique contribution to improving public safety". The agency's objects and powers are laid out on Schedule 1 of the Police and Justice Act. Incredibly the legislation was passed with a clause that gives the "Power to modify objects, functions and structure of the Agency" to the government - no further act of parliament or proper debate or consultation required, just on the nod by an order (secondary legislation).

In November 2008 police, politicians, local authority managers and the CCTV industry met at a conference in Newcastle Marriott Hotel entitled 'The National CCTV Strategy – Where Are We One Year On?'. The event was "aimed at anyone with a responsibility for managing CCTV security or management requirements", so the great and good of surveillance didn't have to put up with ordinary members of the public who might have some reservations about the amount and capability of cameras in the UK.

In his keynote speech Garry Parkins, a National CCTV Consultant with the NPIA, told delegates that the government had confirmed that, as laid out in the strategy, they were going to establish a National CCTV Board "to create a mechanism for all CCTV systems to register core information and meet approved standards". The National CCTV Strategy Board as it is now called has echoes of the National Coal Board or the National Grid. In 2002 Professor Stephen Graham of Durham University wrote a paper 'CCTV: The Stealthy Emergence of a Fifth Utility?' in which he said:

It can be argued that CCTV looks set to follow a similar pattern of development over the next 20 years, to become a kind of 'fifth utility' . Coverage seems set to extend towards ubiquity, to become more multi-purpose, to be regulated nationally, and to adopt standardized technologies. Every murder, school break-in or terrorist act further intensifies the spiral of demands for ubiquitous surveillance

Graham however did not think that one central body would drive this new "fifth utility" forwards when he wrote:

However, it is unlikely that some single, national CCTV system will develop in the model of the water boards or gas boards of the post-war era in Britain. Since their privatization, UK utilities are now made up of a myriad of competing private companies covering different areas, offering different services and geared to different niche markets.

Now the National CCTV Strategy Board is looking very much like the central organisation that will steer CCTV policy in the UK, giving guidance to police, local authorities and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. It is however unlikely that we will see a new regulator set up to handle complaints about CCTV under the model used for the other utilities as 'OFFCAM' may be viewed by policy makers as presupposing an outcome that they do not want to see.

The Newcastle conference press release also pointed out that "A phase of consultation with the CCTV industry and end-users was critical to forming a framework for national registration and standards". Note that consultation is between the police, the CCTV industry and end users - once again no ordinary members of the public spoiling things.

In November 2007 No CCTV produced a report criticising a proposed CCTV scheme in East Oxford. As part of that report we looked at the National CCTV Strategy. Amongst other things we highlighted:

The Home Office raise the issue of a network of CCTV systems: "Consideration should also be given to the police, with the consent of individual users having limited and prescribed network access to smaller CCTV systems, to allow them to investigate crimes carried out against those users, in their own premises, such as investigating a robbery at a local shop, or a burglary at a commercial premises." (Strategy p 35)

Plans are laid out for the use of a CCTV network in conjunction with other databases to allow data-matching/mining and profiling: "It is hoped, in future, as technology is developed, that such a network will allow the use of automated search techniques (i.e. face recognition) and can be integrated with other systems such as ANPR, and police despatch systems to further increase the effectiveness of CCTV." (Strategy p 36)

Future surveillance camera trends are laid out: "the search continues for the panacea of CCTV; systems capable of Automated Picture Analysis, Person Identification, and Behavioural Analysis. Research still continues, and some applications have emerged, with limited success." (Strategy p 40)

The report turns again to integrated systems: "The greater convergence also allows once separated systems to be integrated. For example: [...] Town centre cameras connected to ANPR systems[...] Transport system cameras to travel cards" (Strategy p 40)

Rather than engage in a public debate about such proposals the Home Office is ready to push ahead with more surveillance: "The next stage of this work will be in the form of a 12 month implementation phase which will prioritise and develop the recommendations" (Strategy p 53)

Many of our warnings are now becoming a reality, and weak assurances such as that there is "no intention to create a national image database" [Newcastle conference press release] cannot mask the momentum towards Total Surveillance in the UK.

The National CCTV Strategy laid out 44 recommendations. These have now been divided over five National CCTV Strategy Board subgroups:

For instance Group 1 is tasked with implementing recommendation R2.6: "Establish technical requirements that will allow CCTV cameras to be used for multiple purposes" whilst Group 4 with recommendation R8.7: "In the event of a guilty plea there should be the capability for CCTV evidence to be played in court where this may assist in determining an appropriate sentence".

Some recommendations we are told have already been delivered such as R6.3: "Evaluate ‘camera to archive’ network access and data archiving methods", whilst the use of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (created under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) to drive CCTV expansion forward with minimal recourse to ordinary members of the public - something we have seen happening - is enshrined in recommendation R10.5: "Primacy in relation to CCTV should be determined at a local level by the CDRP, taking into account the strategic guidance provided by the strategy and the National Strategic Board". Furthermore the use of CCTV in pubs and new developments is contained in recommendation R3.5: "CCTV should be considered as an element of planning and licensing applications".

Why is this agenda moving forward without question or proper debate? How has such an expansion of surveillance policy come to be in a strategy document produced by the police rather than an Act of parliament where it would be subject to some (though probably not much) parliamentary scrutiny? Why has no consultation of the wider public taken place before this surveillance agenda is introduced? Under what powers/acts of parliament is this strategy being introduced? Is it not ultra vires for the police to be driving this agenda which rides roughshod over democratic processes?

Police and politicians will no doubt justify the lack of scrutiny and consultation by claiming that CCTV is popular with the public. But what they fail to mention is that this is because the public have been told that CCTV works, and most have not seriously thought about the freedoms they have given away for nothing in return. The NPIA who have been tasked with driving the strategy forward also part funded the recent Campbell Collaboration evaluation of CCTV which found: "the evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing [...] as well as those focused on public transport, did not have a significant effect on crime". So why are they pressing ahead with this technology?

In a recent House of Lords debate on the Constitution Committee's report 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State' Lord Peston pointed out that:

if the public want these CCTV cameras—and my ad hoc experience is that that is true—what is the correct response that those of us in public life, not least the Government, should give? Should we say, "If it is what they want, then it is what they ought to have even though it is not backed by any evidence at all"? Or is it our duty to educate them and tell them that they are wrong? [...] I certainly believe that if all CCTV cameras do is reassure you when you should not regard them as doing so, then someone ought to say to you, "Why don't you think about it a little bit and realise that you are mistaken?".

Lord Peston went on to answer the question "are we sleepwalking into the surveillance society?" with the answer: "We are already in the surveillance society. I very much hope that it is not irreversible".

It is time for the people of this country to wake up. The National CCTV Strategy represents yet another dangerous erosion of our freedoms. We must stop this agenda before it becomes irreversible. Attend local council meetings to question why they are investing in CCTV, write to your local paper, take part in radio phone ins, join a Neightbourhood Action Group (linked to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships), talk to friends and family about the surveillance society, write to your councillors, write to your MP - let's start demanding respect for our freedoms and a halt to this expansion of surveillance cameras.

And finally write to the National CCTV Strategy Programme Team.

It's time to act - before it's too late.

Posted in cctv general - 24/7/2009

ANPR - the expanding network of UK checkpoints - 15/7/2009

A Daily Mail report reveals that Police "use CCTV to photograph three billion car number plates a year". The Mail story is based on figures obtained under Freedom of Information from 26 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales relating to use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems during 2008.

According to the recently released National Policing Improvement Agency's Annual Report, ANPR is:

the surveillance capability that uses mobile and fixed road-side sensors to read vehicle number plates and instantaneously cross-match them with information and intelligence held on the Police National Computer and linked systems

The "linked systems" (database systems) that ANPR links to are primarily the Motor Insurance Database Application System (MIDAS) and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database. But a 2004 study listed other local or other ad hoc databases that include:

– Customs and Excise databases, for example tobacco bootleggers
– outstanding speed camera tickets
– regional stolen vehicle databases, for example ELVIS which covers Merseyside
– PIKE, a national database of LGV and commercial vehicles of interest
– Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) databases

By linking surveillance camera images of vehicles to the details of the vehicle's owners via the DVLA database allows those with access to ANPR to track citizens' movements around the UK. The standard excuse for this level of surveillance is that such systems are "denying criminals the use of the road". The theory goes that criminals can use roads to move around, so if we monitor all vehicles some will be driven by criminals and so we'll catch criminals and reduce crime. Once again law abiding citizens' rights are being discarded supposedly in the fight against crime. To make matters worse the data collected by ANPR cameras is stored for several years - at least two years but perhaps up to five years.

In the past repressive regimes such as the Soviet Union used roadside checkpoints to periodically check drivers papers. Up until now the absence of such checkpoints is what made the UK a "free country" that respected the rights of its citizens. ANPR however is an automated checkpoint system that along with other surveillance cameras undermines the status of the UK as a free country.

As usual we hear cries of "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" which mask the Common Law right to do anything that isn't specifically legislated against - such as driving a car - and which presume that the systems work correctly and are effective. But the accuracy of the data in the databases behind ANPR has been called into question. The National Audit Office (NAO) found a third of DVLA's records could be wrong and an evaluation of an ANPR pilot published in October 2004 ('Driving crime down - Denying criminals the use of the road') revealed that the accuracy of DVLA data was just 40% and also noted that "Accuracy of DVLA databases declined over the study period" [page 98, Database Issues].

Such high error rates mean that innocent people could be identified as criminals. Then there is the issue of "associated vehicles" or convoys described by Frank Whiteley, Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and chairman of the ACPO steering committee on automatic number plate recognition, in a 2005 Independent article. Apparently criminals often travel in convoys and so vehicles that pass an ANPR system at about the same time could be tagged as being part of a convoy.

The Devon & Cornwall police's Roads Policing Strategy 2008-2010 in its ANPR section states:

Full use will be made of available technology, in particular ANPR systems to ensure free passage for the innocent motorist

Since when did innocent law abiding citizens need costly and illiberal surveillance systems to ensure them free passage? And how did such a massive surveillance system get built across the UK?

The National Policing Improvement Agency submitted a memorandum to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State' inquiry in December 2007 which gives some background:

Since 2002, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has promoted development of ANPR as a core policing tool, in conjunction with key partner agencies. ANPR is now overseen nationally by a multi-agency Programme Board, chaired by ACPO, with NPIA, HMIC, SOCA and the Security Service, amongst others, as members. ANPR has proven to be a very successful operational tool, enhancing the ability of the police to intercept, and arrest, a wide range of criminals using the roads.

In April 2007, the national work on ANPR was incorporated into NPIA which, under continued ACPO leadership, is responsible for operational ANPR services at a national level; a programme of Assisted Implementation in Forces beginning in autumn 2007; and co-ordination of the wider ANPR development programme.

In 2005 ACPO produced a three year ANPR Strategy (2005-2008) in which they are proud to announce:

The British Police Service are world leaders in the application of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, a technology that was itself invented in the United Kingdom

According to a 2007 PA Consulting publication 'Realising the benefits of Automatic Number Plate Recognition': "the Home Office has provided £32 million for the development of the ANPR infrastructure programme in England and Wales".

And the expansion of ANPR was laid out in the Home Office's 5 year plan (2004-2008)Confident Communities in a Secure Britain which says the police will benefit from:

increasing use of automatic number plate recognition technology, by increasing the number of strategically placed and mobile cameras, and by improving the data linkages between the system and the DVLA and Police National Computer to help identify cars of interest to the police [page 72 - Improving police resources and intelligence to catch and convict more offenders]

Yet a 2008 consultation, as part of the Home Office's 'Analysis of Policing and Community Safety' (APACS), with responses from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Police Forces, Police Authorities, Local Government, Government departments, regional Government Offices, Fire & Rescue authorities, and representatives of the banking and financial sectors found that:

There was little support for the strategic roads policing (ANPR) measures as the majority of respondents felt that these measures were output (rather than outcome) focussed, and were management information at best

But still the technology rolls on, being sold as the latest silver bullet to solve all problems. For instance the National Policing Improvement Agency announced their "approach to policing major music events" which includes ANPR:

The team explored good practice on covert surveillance and agreed on a dedicated Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) database to be established which would be able to target travelling criminals who are responsible for major organised criminal activity

The National Policing Improvement Agency's Annual Report details the scale of the system and some of the data-sharing that is planned:

The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Back Office Facility (BOF) II system has now been deployed to all but one force. The implementation of this system means that all these forces in England and Wales now have the ability to supply data to the National ANPR Data Centre.

The ANPR infrastructure has the capability to receive and store 50 million ANPR reads per day. The National ANPR Data Centre (NADC) receives around 8 million reads per day. In due course, Scottish forces and PSNI will also be connected to NADC, as will other national policing and security agencies. These include British Transport Police, Serious Organised Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Security Service.

Freedom of information figures obtained by the Daily Mail reveal that Devon and Cornwall police read and stored 64 million number plates last year after a network of cameras were installed in the area. According to the May edition of their Billboard magazine Devon and Cornwall police also took part, in the Torbay and Plymouth areas, in Operation Utah "a regional, multiagency operation which uses ANPR equipment to crack down on those breaking the law on the roads" involving "100 police officers from five regional forces in the south west, together with staff from the Vehicles and Operators Services Agency (VOSA), Department of Work & Pensions, HM Customs Road Fuel Team, Environment Agency and Trading Standards, operated from a number of locations in the area".

Geoffrey Cox, Conservative MP for Torridge and West Devon told the Daily Mail:

It is a Big Brother state which assumes and suspects that everyone, at any time, might commit an offence and so gathers evidence against you in advance. It is an unsettling symptom of something that has grown up without peoples' recognition, understanding and assent.

ANPR cameras are harder to fight than traditional CCTV systems, where decisions are made primarily by local authorities and so can be challenged at a local level. ANPR is being driven by central government and a large number of organisations. Rolling back the spread of number plate recognition cameras will require people in the UK to speak out against the technology, to hold politicians and policy makers to account and demand that the systems be removed. It is up to the people of this country to decide on the limits of state snooping. If we do not we can expect the state to continue its march towards total surveillance.

The proponents of ANPR are ready to exploit whatever opportunity they can to push the technology forwards. The National Police Improvement Agency's ANPR web page says:

We are also working with the Olympics Delivery Authority to ensure ANPR makes a major contribution to the 2012 Olympic Games security operation

The race is clearly on to expand surveillance networks in the UK before law abiding citizens wake up and demand respect for their freedoms and privacy.

Posted in cctv general - 15/7/2009

Proposed bill contains CCTV expansion in disguise - 8/7/2009

The government's draft legislative programme for 2009/10 was announced last week and contains some misleading doublespeak with regards to surveillance cameras in the UK.

The programme is part of the government's grand sounding plan 'Building Britain's Future' or BBF which they describe as "the action that the UK Government is taking to move the UK from recession to recovery and forge a new model of economic growth; restore trust and accountability to the political system through democratic reform and renewal; and modernise our public services and national infrastructure".

One of the bills within the draft legislation is the 'Policing Crime and Private Security Bill'. The bill even comes with its own motto - 'Fair rules for all' - that will no doubt "restore trust and accountability to the political system" and ensure that no-one suspects it might contain rules which are fairer to the state than the citizen.

The government says the bill will:

give guarantees to local people that they will have more power to keep their neighbourhoods safe, including the right to hold the police to account at monthly beat meetings, to have a say on CCTV and other crime prevention measures and to vote on how offenders pay back to the community.

Allowing people to have a say on CCTV sounds quite reasonable until you consider who currently makes decisions about CCTV installation - in the vast majority of cases it is local councils. So as things stand local people already have a say if they attend local council meetings or lobby local councilors as No CCTV and other groups around the UK have done. Council meetings are open to the public and the minutes are publicly available.

However in recent years the CCTV decision making power has begun to shift away from councils and drifted towards shadowy bodies such as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. These partnerships are made up of police, councils, primary care trusts, fire and rescue services and usually some self selecting members of the community. They usually meet in private, most people are unaware of their existance and many do not publish minutes of their meetings.

How did the government sell these partnerships back in 1998? The government's 'Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships' (Home Office 1998) states:

The Crime and Disorder Act provides the framework for a radical new empowerment of local people in the fight against crime and disorder.

Sound familiar?

Decisions about surveillance cameras should be evidence based. Cameras should only be installed where there is a proven need, where it can be proved that CCTV would be an effective use of public money and where the public affected is happy that the loss of freedoms is acceptable.

The government 'Building Britain's Future' document makes no such stipulations, instead it states:

we will build on the introduction of neighbourhood policing, the Policing Pledge, the ‘Engaging Communities in Justice’ Green Paper, and the ‘Justice Seen Justice Done’ campaign to set out clearly the full range of what people can expect from their local police and justice system, including:

[...]

• A right to support for community action – with CCTV where communities demand it, Community Crime Fighters and Neighbourhood Watch
[ - page 77]

Note "CCTV where communities demand it". Not where it would be appropriate or where evidence shows it might help. Instead the government want "communities", no doubt through Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships or some such body to be allowed to "demand" cameras. Few people have given serious thought or conducted research into the use or dangers of cameras and their views on their effectiveness are shaped by a biased media and government spin. For instance page 79 of 'Building Britain's Future' states:

CCTV will continue to play an important role, deterring and detecting crime and helping secure convictions. Having spent almost £170 million funding nearly 700 CCTV schemes earlier this decade, we are now focused on improving their effectiveness through operator training, and giving local people more of a say on where they want to see additional CCTV coverage, but also giving them clearer ways to complain on the rare occasions where they feel it is excessive. [emphasis added]

So the government is claiming that CCTV has a role in "deterring and detecting crime and helping secure convictions" despite numerous studies that contradict these claims, including the recently released 'Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime' by the Campbell Collaboration (part funded by the National Policing Improvement Agency) which states:

the evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers [sic] and public housing [...] as well as those focused on public transport, did not have a significant effect on crime

The government's draft legislative programme does nothing to address the civil liberties issues relating to CCTV or the undermining of our Common Law rights. Instead it seeks to continue the expansion of surveillance cameras in the UK. Those of us who are concerned about the proliferation of cameras must act now to educate the wider public to both the dangers and the ineffectiveness of this technology and work to stop them from being taken in by promises of better consultation or regulation.

Posted in cctv general - 8/7/2009

CCTV in schools - students fight back - 23/6/2009

A group of students at Davenant Foundation School in Loughton, Essex were so horrified when they found surveillance cameras had been installed in their classroom that they walked out. When they returned they did so wearing masks.

Two of the students explain what happened in a recent Guardian article:

Earlier this year, on a school day like any other, we shuffled into our politics class at 11.20 on a Monday morning. What we didn’t notice straight away were four tinted CCTV domes hanging from the ceiling including a huge monitor dome staring right at us. Confusion and anger broke out among us. A teacher casually stated that they were for teacher training purposes. After a thought of "God, George Orwell was right", some of us angrily packed up and left – we weren’t comfortable working in a classroom with cameras.

It turned out that our entire class was angry or confused over the cameras. Out of a class of 18 students, 17 felt uncomfortable with the idea and decided to boycott the room until the issue, and the students, were addressed. This was a difficult decision as we were three months away from exams and we had five lessons a fortnight in the room. The student body was supportive and a petition gained over 130 signatures from the sixth-form.

A piece in the Waltham Forest Guardian states:

The school, an accredited teacher training centre, said the equipment has been installed in two classrooms to capture footage showing examples of best practice in the profession, and would not be used without pupils' knowledge.

But as the students point out:

Lessons continued, although a few weeks later when students discovered that the recording system was in a cupboard in our classroom the microphones were found to in fact be switched on. We switched them off.

The students have now taken the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the watchdog that is supposed to protect access to personal information in the UK. Back in February Classwatch, a company that sells "in-class AV recording system that assists teaching and professional development, helps control behaviour and offers protection for staff and pupils, and security for assets", met with the Information Commissioner to seek guidance "on the Data Protection issues raised with the installation of Classwatch® systems". The guidance, published on the Classwatch website, is predictably disappointing and raises no issues regarding the surveillance of teaching staff who it appears are fair game:

In summary the ICO recognises the positive applications of Classwatch under the teacher's control for the purpose of training, reflective practice etc.

Where there is a clear and justified need for Classwatch to be used for asset protection in the same classroom then audio needs to be switched off during the times specified that the system is in video only mode (which will be out of lesson time coverage).

Surely teacher training could be achieved using a simple video camera on a tripod temporarily at the front of the classroom as and when required. Cheap, easy to use and clearly identifiable as to whether it is on and who it is pointing at. But no profits for Classwatch and their kind of course.

The ICO guidance goes on to say:

* The ICO acknowledge that there may be circumstances that justify installing a system for the purpose of addressing problem behaviour. The ICO stress that constant filming and sound recording is likely to be unacceptable unless there is a pressing need - for example, if there is an ongoing problem of assaults or criminal damage.

* The ICO agree that one person's prank is another person's distressing incident but constant video monitoring of all children in a class cannot be justified in their view with reference to the need to address classroom disruption.

* Any policy on acceptable use of the system should set out clear guidelines on when footage collected for the ‘continuing professional development’ purpose can be consulted and used to investigate classroom incidents. It is unlikely to be acceptable to the ICO to use footage to deal with trivial incidents.

The Information Commissioner does not get to the heart of issues such as the principle that in a Common Law country you are free to do anything that isn't specifically legislated against, the fundamental legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty or the wider issues of personal privacy. That is because the commissioner's role is merely to enforce the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. The Data Protection Act consists of a series of caveats and opt outs effectively to justify removing our rights. CCTV in schools is a dangerous expansion of an already over surveilled society that normalises surveillance for children who will not recall a time without it and undermines trust in pupils, teachers and lecturers.

At the end of this month the current commissioner Richard Thomas is stepping down and will be replaced by Christopher Graham, the current Director General of the Advertising Standards Authority.

The students at Davenant Foundation School have come in for criticism since taking a stand against excessive surveillance so we leave the last word to them:

The criticism of our campaign only serves to illustrate the ignorance of adults who have surrendered within only the last few years our right to protest in parliament, our right to go about our business without being stopped and questioned by police about our identity and our affairs, and our personal privacy.

Posted in cctv general - 23/6/2009

UK Police's surrealist CCTV poster - 5/6/2009

The Metropolitan Police have released a poster that suggests that people who look at CCTV cameras are terrorists. The poster is one of a series launched as part of the police's "new campaign to urge Londoners to report suspicious activity". The text of the poster (below) says: "A bomb won’t go off here because weeks before a shopper reported someone studying the CCTV cameras".

The original poster

The ridiculous posters have sparked a comedy backlash with parodies popping up all over the internet. The response has been similar to that following another absurd campaign by the Met police last year that suggested taking photographs was suspicious behaviour.

A parody

More parodies of these posters can be found on the boing boing website.

Meanwhile Privacy International has drafted a formal letter of complaint to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. The letter states:

we take issue with the proposition that anyone "studying" CCTV cameras may constitute a threat to security. These cameras are supposed to be visible and conspicuous. The Data Protection Act, as you know, requires that their installation and existence is not secretive unless in prescribed circumstances.

How then is it reasonable or appropriate to urge the public to report scrutiny of what is, in effect, a piece of street furniture? And what constitutes the act of “studying”? CCTV has become a prominent and in places a unique feature of modern Britain, and millions of tourists every year go out of their way to take photographs of these devices. Is the Met suggesting that every such tourist should be reported? Should a local resident who wishes to scrutinize for legitimate reasons a part of the local environment anticipate a report to the terrorism hotline?

It is interesting to note that the police seem to be admitting that CCTV does bugger all, as in the scenario they put forward in their poster it is not the CCTV camera that spots someone studying it but a shopper. Maybe they plan to replace surveillance cameras with surveillance shoppers throughout the UK...

Posted in cctv general - 5/6/2009

Victory in police surveillance case at Court of Appeal - 27/5/2009

Andrew Wood has won his landmark case against the Metropolitan Police in the Court of Appeal. The case relates to the police's use of surveillance with regard to law abiding protesters in the UK.

In April 2005 Andrew, who worked for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), attended the Annual General Meeting of Reed Elsevier. As he left the meeting the police followed him, repeatedly photographed him and sought to establish his identity (see our previous blog entry for more details). Andrew took the police to judicial review for their 'routine' surveillance of a person going about their lawful business and engaged in political activity.

The court has now ruled that the police action was in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the 'Right to respect for private and family life', and specifically 8(1) of the convention: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". The judgment also makes reference to the recent victory for civil liberties in the case of Marper with regards to the retention of innocent peoples' DNA on the National DNA Database.

The judgment states:

On the particular facts the police action, unexplained at the time it happened and carrying as it did the implication that the images would be kept and used, is a sufficient intrusion by the State into the individual's own space, his integrity, as to amount to a prima facie violation of Article 8(1). It attains a sufficient level of seriousness and in the circumstances the appellant enjoyed a reasonable expectation that his privacy would not be thus invaded. Moreover I consider with respect that this conclusion is supported by the judgment of the Strasbourg court in Marper. It will be recalled that the first sentence of paragraph 67 reads:

"The mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 8..."

In his closing remarks, Lord Collins of Mapesbury expresses concern about the wider surveillance state and CCTV:

Nevertheless, it is plain that the last word has yet to be said on the implications for civil liberties of the taking and retention of images in the modern surveillance society. This is not the case for the exploration of the wider, and very serious, human rights issues which arise when the State obtains and retains the images of persons who have committed no offence and are not suspected of having committed any offence.

In a recent Guardian article Andrew wrote:

Occasionally people joke "here comes the law" when referring to the police. But the police aren't the law, and they are subject to the law – just like you and I. Today a ruling by the court of appeal found the police had broken the law when they undertook a "routine surveillance" operation against Campaign Against Arms Trade in 2005 – a period in which I was CAAT's press officer.

[...]

Today's court of appeal ruling maintains that, while the police photography was undertaken in a public place, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and the photography could not be separated from its use, ie the creation of a police file. The judgment relied on the recent ruling of the European court of human rights regarding the retention of DNA profiles (Marper v UK) and other case law. Today's judgment limits the retention of photographs and other information unless there is a genuine ongoing criminal investigation; there was no crime or further criminal investigation resulting from the AGM of Reed Elsevier in 2005.

At the back of my mind throughout the four years it has taken to reach today's decision was the statement by Richard Thomas, the government's information commissioner, that Britain would "sleep-walk" into a surveillance society. In a very small way, my work and that of my solicitors and barrister Martin Westgate has drawn a line in the sand: the arbitrary retention of people's photographs by the state is wrong, breaches the law and must stop.

More information about the case can be found at www.judicialreview.org.uk.
Read the full judgment at www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/414.html&query=title+(+Wood+)&method=boolean

Posted in cctv general - 27/5/2009

Another study confirms ineffectiveness of CCTV - public must act - 19/5/2009

The mainstream media has been awash with stories of the ineffectiveness of CCTV in light of a recent report conducted by The Campbell Collaboration. 'Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime' is a meta-analysis of 41 CCTV evaluations in four main settings: city and town centres; public housing; public transport; and car parks.

Below is a selection of articles:

The truth outs – CCTV doesn't cut crime - The Guardian
Big Brother isn't working: How £500m of CCTV cameras does 'next to nothing' to cut crime - Daily Mail
CCTV only effective at cutting car crime - Daily Telegraph
CCTV only effective at cutting car crime - The Metro
CCTV schemes in city and town centres have little effect on crime, says report - The Guardian
CCTV ‘is failing to cut crime’ - The Sun

The Campbell Collaboration report, a summary of which is to be made available to UK police forces this summer, concludes:

Exactly what the optimal circumstances are for effective use of CCTV schemes is not entirely clear at present, and this needs to be established by future evaluation research (see below). But it is important to note that the success of the CCTV schemes in car parks was mostly limited to a reduction in vehicle crimes (the only crime type measured in 5 of the 6 schemes) and camera coverage was high for those evaluations that reported on it. In the national British evaluation of the effectiveness of CCTV, Farrington (2007b) found that effectiveness was significantly correlated with the degree of coverage of the CCTV cameras, which was greatest in car parks. Furthermore, all 6 car park schemes included other interventions, such as improved lighting and security guards [emphasis added]. It is plausible to suggest that CCTV schemes with high coverage and other interventions and targeted on vehicle crimes are effective.

Conversely, the evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing measured a much larger range of crime types and only a small number of studies involved other interventions. These CCTV schemes, as well as those focused on public transport, did not have a significant effect on crime.

This is what No CCTV and others have been saying for some time - CCTV is not an effective crime fighting tool. And this is not the first report to reach this conclusion - a similar Home Office study in 2002 said the same thing. But rather than halt CCTV expansion in the wake of such reports CCTV use has increased. The Home Office will call for more studies in the hope that one will give the answer they want. But the important thing to take from this latest report is that it is up to the public not the government to halt CCTV expansion.

Decisions about CCTV installation are made at a local level by local councils. The public must take on board the findings in this study. Many people believe that they are trading a little bit of freedom for increased security or crime prevention - this simply is not true. We must hold the custodians of public money to account. We must demand that they prove the case for CCTV with real evidence to back it up before wasting yet more money on this illiberal technology. It is up to all of us to stop the spread of surveillance before it is too late.

As Sir Ken Macdonald QC, the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions warned last year with regards to the growing surveillance state:

[...] we should take very great care to imagine the world we are creating before we build it. We might end up living with something we can't bear.

Posted in cctv general - 19/5/2009

Google Street - Information Commissioner Slated - 13/5/2009

Privacy international (PI) is calling for a review of the Information Commissioner following a series of failed judgements culminating in their recent complaint against Google Street View. Privacy International says that the Commissioner has failed to uphold the principles and the spirit of the Data Protection Act.

The Commissioner recently overruled a complaint by Privacy International who argued that Google should have instituted stronger privacy protections and that it should have pursued full notice and consent for its activities. The Commissioner responded on 30th March arguing that Street View did not breach the Data Protection Act and that the service should proceed unhindered.

In a press release on the ruling the Information Commissioner said:

In the same way there is no law against anyone taking pictures of people in the street as long as the person using the camera is not harassing people. Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act and, in any case, it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back.

Privacy International in their press release responded:

The Information Commissioner has clearly decided that pragmatism and commercial interest should triumph over principle. This is a dangerous trend and one that is clearly responsible for Britain's appalling surveillance culture. For a regulatory body in any domain to take such an approach would be an abdication of its responsibility; for the statement to be so blatant about their disregard is unforgiveable.

Privacy International pointed out: "While this appalling disregard for openness and process is a worrying trend across the global regulatory landscape, as an international watchdog we can attest that we have not witnessed degradation to the extent demonstrated by the UK ICO [Information Commissioners Office]."

Privacy International is calling for a 'root and branch' overhaul of the Commissioner's Office by Parliament. Read their full press release here.

Meanwhile Google has announced an experimental search engine tool 'Similar Images' - an image search which uses a picture rather than text to find other matching images. When Street View launched we warned:

Another technology in the pipeline is image searching based on a starting image. When that is perfected it will be possible to enter say an anti-war poster and then search Google Street View images to find places where such a poster is displayed. Whilst this feature may not be on the front page of Google it is likely that police and security services will have the ability.

Experts have been predicting that this sort of technology would take around ten years to perfect on the internet but it now appears Google may have the capability of this type of search much sooner. It is incredible that the Information Commissioners Office, the body set up to "promote access to official information and to protect personal information", should have no issue with Google Street View and state that "it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back". At some point limits must be defined otherwise technological advancements will continue to dismantle privacy until none is left.

Clearly the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioners Office are failing. If we care at all about our privacy, it is up to us to preserve it.

Posted in cctv general - 13/5/2009

Anti-CCTV advertising campaign - 29/4/2009

A group of digital photography students from London South Bank University felt so strongly about the unchecked proliferation of surveillance cameras in the UK that they have devised an anti-CCTV advertising campaign for No CCTV. The students have come up with a series of poster designs that present in a humorous way the feeling of being watched as you go about your daily life and illustrating "the unnecessary and somewhat ominous nature of this surveillance". The team, made up of Anita, Arte, Dana, Charlotte and Aaron used simple and effective slogans such as "It's rude to stare" and "Who watches the watchers?".

Image by Charlotte Miceli

The campaign uses a camera headed man to illustrate the ever present CCTV camera. Arte said: "By creating a human/camera hybrid character in the images as well as for the campaign logo we hope to re-engage the audience's attention that CCTV camera operators are watching them and that the surveillance emanates from an unseen 'authority' that undermines our right to privacy".

Many thanks to Anita, Arte, Dana, Charlotte and Aaron for all the hard work they put into the campaign. We will put all of the campaign images on the No CCTV website soon and we hope to turn their designs into t-shirts and posters and make them available. Of course if there's anyone out there with a few thousand pounds to spare to pay for a billboard and/or newspaper launch of the campaign then we'd love to hear from you!

Posted in cctv general - 29/4/2009

RIPA and Crowded places - 2 surveillance related consultations - 23/4/2009

Following controversy over the use of surveillance powers by local authorities the government has launched a consultation: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Consolidating Orders and Codes of Practice. The government is suggesting that a bit of tinkering with the powers such as "raising the seniority of those who can authorise techniques under RIPA, and increasing the oversight, in local authorities" will make everything okay.

In their consultation document the government wheels out the standard fictitious balancing act between freedom and security used by governments whenever they want to remove freedoms. The introduction states:

Our country has a proud tradition of defending individual freedom – by protecting people’s freedom from those who would do us harm and by safeguarding individuals’ privacy from unjustified interference by the State. The Government is responsible for protecting both types of freedom. In order to do this, we must ensure that the police and other public authorities have the powers they need to carry out their functions. But we must also ensure that those powers are not used inappropriately. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘RIPA’) is central to protecting both types of freedom.

Suggesting that RIPA, an act described as a 'Snoopers Charter', is central to protecting privacy is an insult to the intelligence of UK citizens. RIPA has been a controversial piece of legislation since its publication in 2000. Many powers have been added under secondary legislation without proper debate, including The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 made earlier this month which introduced a new mandatory requirement for Internet Service Providers and telecommunications companies to store communications traffic data logfiles for 12 months.

The powers that local councils have abused were themselves bestowed upon them following a consultation back in 2003 called 'Access to Communications Data respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime'. According to the summary of responses that consultation received just 178 responses: "Of those 31 were from commercial organisations, 27 from a variety of interest groups, 52 from individuals and 68 from public authorities".

The government then introduced two pieces of secondary legislation without parliamentary debate: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003 and The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2003.

The latest consultation points out that some covert surveillance does not even require RIPA authorisation as it "does not constitute intrusive or directed surveillance for the purposes of Part II of the 2000 Act and no directed or intrusive surveillance authorisation can therefore be granted". Such activity includes:

• covert surveillance by way of an immediate response to events;
• covert surveillance as part of general observation activities;
• covert surveillance not for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation;
• overt use of CCTV and ANPR systems;
• certain other specific situations.

The RIPA consultation closes 10th July. Details of how to respond can be found here.

The second consultation that has been launched is entitled 'Protecting crowded places' and is described as looking at "how local authorities, businesses, the police and communities can better protect the areas where we live, work and play from the threat of terrorist attack".

In the 'crowded places' consultation documents the government presents CCTV as a terrorism fighting tool. Faced with numerous reports over the last few years that show it an expensive and poor crime prevention or detection tool, the government has decided surveillance cameras are now for counter terrorism.

The beauty of the CCTV and terrorism argument for government is that they claim they can't give us detailed information because of "national security considerations". This excuse was used in the National CCTV Strategy published in 2007, when we were told that the "Counter Terrorist Command of the Metropolitan Police (SO15), the Security Services, Home Office Terrorist Protection Unit, Home Office Scientific Development Branch, Serious and Organised Crime Agency and individuals representing elements of the national transport infrastructure" had been consulted but we couldn't know their views because of "national security considerations".

The main consultation document begins with a predictable chunk of scaremongering about the mortal danger of living in the UK and then looks at various measures that can be used to fight the invisible enemies. Published alongside this is 'Safer Places: A counter terrorism supplement' that is "intended to be a practical guide to designing counter-terrorism measures into new developments". Rather helpfully a crowded place is defined and they even manage to get "terrorist attack" into the definition to instill the phrase with maximum scare value:

A crowded place is a location or environment to which members of the public have access that may be considered potentially liable to terrorist attack by virtue of its crowd density.

The document emphasises the government's pro CCTV view without mentioning any of the inconvenient negative research into its effectiveness. and promotes the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which are rapidly popping up all over the country despite the fact that during trials it was found that the DVLA database that the cameras are linked to was only 40% accurate.

The crowded places consultation also closes 10th July. Details of how to respond can be found here.

This government makes great play of consultations and loves to claim that they are listening to the people. In fact the government uses the consultation process to say "you had a chance to complain" - they govern by a system of "we'll do whatever WE like unless you explicitly tell us you don't want us to do it". As a result there is always a great slew of consultations running. According to the consultation website from mySociety Tell Them What You Think currently there are 172 ongoing consultations.

So will responding to a government consultation make any difference? As things stand probably not but if more people took part the government would have to do something - like scrap consultations most likely. However responding to a consultation is at the very least an extremely useful exercise in focusing your own views, someone in government will read it (whatever they may choose to do with it) and via the web it is possible to publish your own consultation response. If anyone does respond to either of these consultations, do send us a copy.

Posted in cctv general - 23/4/2009

RIPA powers and councils' misuse of surveillance - 9/4/2009

More evidence has emerged of the misuse of surveillance in the UK after information was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The Lib Dems surveyed 180 councils and found that powers granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) have been used 10,288 times in the last five years. Councils misused their powers in a number of ways from checking if parents live in the correct school catchment area to investigating dog fouling.

But how did it come to pass that local councils have such powers? An interesting account can be found in the recent House of Lords Constitution Committee's report 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State'. The report explains that when RIPA was passed in 2000, local authorities were not included in the list of public authorities granted surveillance powers:

During the passage of the Act, Bill Cash MP wrote to the then Home Secretary in relation to concerns raised with him that the Bill as drafted would extend the power to "a range of officials in several public-sector bodies including local authorities and … government departments." The then Minister of State, Charles Clarke MP, wrote back to Mr Cash, explaining that such concerns "may be referring to the provision in the Bill allowing for the Secretary of State to make further additions to" the list of relevant public authorities with power to obtain data "at some future stage if it is deemed necessary … by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. I can, however, confirm even at this stage that such powers will not be made available to local authorities."

Then in 2003 two Orders were passed by so called 'affirmative resolution' in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords that extended the surveillance powers to additional public authorities, including local authorities. But MPs and Peers were told that these were not new powers, just a tidying up exercise:

The debates in both Houses of Parliament when the Order was approved in 2003 seemed to indicate that these were not new powers. We wrote to Vernon Coaker on 18 December to seek clarification of this point. His response of 12 January confirmed that these were not new powers: prior to RIPA, the use of directed surveillance or covert human intelligence sources by any public authority, including local authorities, was unregulated. The Minister explained that RIPA addressed the situation and was designed to ensure that public authorities complied with the ECHR.

What an incredible example of doublespeak from Vernon Coaker MP, Home Office Minister for Crime, Policing, Counter-terrorism and Security - to suggest that granting illiberal powers of surveillance to councils is a way of complying with the European Convention on Human Rights! Councils should not have these powers - if they suspect that a crime has been or is going to be committed then they should turn to the police who can investigate the matter. Surely a council surveilling the citizens whom they are meant to represent goes against the role of the council and is ultra vires.

The RIPA powers given to local authorities were granted under false pretenses, are unnecessary, have been abused and must be removed.

Posted in cctv general - 9/4/2009

CCTV in pubs - Pub Landlord's CCTV victory is a lesson to us all - 2/4/2009

A landlord in North London has won his fight against CCTV in pubs. Nick Gibson had been told by local police that he must "install CCTV capturing a head and shoulder shot of every person entering the pub" in order to get his license. Gibson wasn't happy with such demands, viewing cameras as an affront to the civil liberties of his customers, and so he determined to fight the installation of CCTV and took his battle to the media.

A letter to the Guardian led to a string of comment pieces and alarm in several newspapers, magazines, web sites, blogs as well as being discussed on radio phone in shows. This then led to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) wading into the debate, an ICO spokesperson commenting that:

Hardwiring surveillance into the UK's pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We are concerned at the prospect of landlords being forced into installing CCTV in pubs as a matter of routine in order to meet the terms of a licence. We will now be speaking with the Metropolitan Police about the blanket requirement for licensed premises in certain boroughs to install CCTV surveillance.

In the face of such widespread attention the police/local authority were forced to climb down. Under the Licensing Act 2003 police can make recommendations in the granting of licenses, which is still controlled by local authorities. What this victory highlights is that things can be changed by people who do something, rather than give up because it seems that the fight is too hard to win. We have more power than we think we have - all it takes is for more people to follow his lead and take a stand.

Gibson told the Islington Gazzette:

The police originally requested that we put in CCTV and have now agreed that we don't have to, which is great. We now want to focus on getting the pub right and moving forwards.

Unfortunately the fight against CCTV in pubs isn't over yet. There are still powers in Clause 31 of the Policing and Crime Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament, that will be used to extend the powers of police to impose licensing conditions not only for pubs and clubs but also shops and off licenses. If this bill is passed into law then CCTV could be introduced as a condition of all licenses. Now is the time to write to your MP telling him/her about the danger to our liberties if Clause 31 of this bill is passed. You should also write to members of the House of Lords asking them to strike down these powers when the bill reaches the House of Lords.

The Drapers Arms will open CCTV free in May.

Posted in cctv general - 2/4/2009

Google Street View not up everyone's street - 22/3/2009

Google has launched its controversial Street View feature in the UK, publishing street level photographs of 25 cities on the internet. Street View is an extension of the Google Maps technology that already displays overhead satellite images.

Street View is a clever toy that allows people to view tourist attractions, historic sites and monuments. However, Google has also captured residential streets allowing anyone with a computer to view images of people's private homes. Often people have been captured by the system too. Google says that as the images were taken on public land they are within the law, that their system blurs faces and number plates and that you can ask to have images taken down. The obscuring is done by computer and just a scant browse through Google's images shows that it does not always work - as a result some people's faces or car number plates are clearly visible. Even where faces are obscured it can still be possible to identify people.

Whilst it is one thing to film historic sites or monuments, it is another thing to film people's private homes, driveways, gardens and cars. Surely Google should have sought the permission of people before they took the photographs. Google's claims that the system records no more than you could see just walking down the street is disingenuous - the images are more like driving down the street in a double decker bus with a long lens camera and not everyone in the world is able to walk down a quiet suburban road in Sheffield.

Google is effectively saying that privacy no longer exists. What is more no-one really seems to be able to explain the point of filming people's houses. A surprising number of posts at the end of news items seem to be from people who are thrilled to have their house on the net - surely they could just step out of their front doors and marvel at the real thing! In a celebrity dross driven world it's almost as if nothing exists until it's been on the telly or in this case the computer screen.

It is up to us to define privacy as new technology emerges - we need a certain amount of privacy to lead our lives. For instance in 2007 Facebook ran into trouble for broadcasting people's online purchases to their friends - suddenly people realised that if you want to surprise someone with a present then you need some privacy. We all tell white lies, like telling your Auntie that the curtains she wants to give you are too big for your living room, lovely though they are. What happens when your Auntie goes on Google Street View and sees your windows are in fact the right size?

Even though faces and number plates are obscured, somewhere Google holds the unobscured images. Google's assurances that people can request that images be taken down does not address the issue that Google has a database of these images. Will they actually permanently delete all versions of the images that people ask to be removed? Who will have access to the database of images? As well as the originals held by Google, images may be cached elsewhere on the net or they may have already been downloaded on to individuals' computers.

In his book No Place to Hide, Robert O'Harrow Jr. looks at companies that harvest databases for data matching and profiling. They are able to construct dossiers of individuals in the USA using extremely powerful data matching techniques on super computers. One such company was Seisint who created a data-searching product called "Matrix" which: "gave investigators nearly instant access to a rich dossier on virtually any adult in America". O'Harrow recounts how in 2002 Hank Asher, Seisent founder and inventor of Matrix, used the system to construct a profile of the so-called "Washington sniper".

It wasn’t long before he had a suspect and passed along the man’s name and number to police. His work was a testament to the power of Matrix. It was also wrong. “So I ran a profile of the distance of every one of the murders, and I came up with a guy that lived like a hundred feet from one of them, five hundred feet from another, two thousand feet from another. I mean, the glove fit,” he said. “And I sent that up to them and I can’t imagine what that poor fellow…” Asher laughed in an embarrassed way about his mistake.

Seisent has since been acquired by the UK based Reed Elsivier Group.

It is likely that police, security services and local authorities will make use of Street View. Another technology in the pipeline is image searching based on a starting image. When that is perfected it will be possible to enter say an anti-war poster and then search Google Street View images to find places where such a poster is displayed. Whilst this feature may not be on the front page of Google it is likely that police and security services will have the ability. Of course currently the images are not right up to date but commercial applications of the data are likely to drive the need to take the photos more often.

In a Times article in 2007, Technology lawyer Struan Robertson of Pinsent Masons said that whilst it is fine to take snaps of other people without their consent the rules are different for Google:

if we're taking snaps for commercial use, in which individuals are identifiable, there is no such exemption. The subjects must be notified, and that is hard for Google to do. Even a loudspeaker on top of the camera cars ("Hi, it's Google here, say 'cheese' everybody!") might not suffice.

The law sets extra requirements for so-called sensitive personal data: it demands explicit consent, not just notification. That means when taking pictures of someone leaving a church or sexual health clinic – which could reveal a religious belief or an illness – camera cars might need to pull over and start picking up signatures.

It is also strange at a time when photographers in the UK are being treated as terrorists that Google are allowed to photograph with impunity. Last year the UK police launched an advertising campaign in several UK cities, informing people that they should view photographers with suspicion. This ridiculous poster campaign led to a string of parodies being posted on the internet.

Privacy International is planning to legally challenge Google Street View. Even if Google wins a legal challenge and is acting within current legislative law what about common decency and fairness? Just because a technology exists does not mean we have to use it, we must think carefully about its implications.

We need to draw limits of what is and what is not acceptable in terms of Google's mapping technology. It is up to us to preserve some privacy. That said, not all uses of Google Street View are bad - for instance it can be used to highlight the position of surveillance cameras in our cities!

Posted in cctv general - 22/3/2009

Police admit storing images of law abiding protestors - 12/3/2009

Police have admitted that they store photos of peaceful protesters on a criminal database. The Telegraph reports:

The Metropolitan Police last night confirmed it uses a criminal database to hold private information about protesters, including those who have not been convicted or accused of any crime.

The records are said to contain photos obtained by video surveillance of rallies and meetings as well as details of the demonstrators' political affiliations.

Activists who attended anti-war marches, climate change campaigns and protests against the proposed third Heathrow runway are among those whose personal data is stored on the Crimint database, which also contains intelligence on suspected criminals.

Nay sayers constantly tell those of us concerned about surveillance "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear", yet the people whose details are being stored on this database have done nothing other than exercise their constitutional right to protest. Who will have access to this database? We are constantly hearing about proposals to share data with police forces of other countries and people being flagged up in Criminal Records Bureau(CRB) checks when they have done nothing wrong. The UK police also have a National DNA Database containing the DNA of millions of people never convicted of a crime even though a European Court of Human Rights ruling said this was illegal.

In January we highlighted the case of Andrew Wood who as a shareholder of Reed Elsevier attended their AGM and broke no laws, yet the police followed him and repeatedly photographed him. Andrew who is a member of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade(CAAT) suspected that the police wanted to add his photo to a spotter sheet to be used at future events. It looks as though his suspicions were correct. Andrew took the police to court and the latest ruling is expected very soon.

Now powers in Clause 31 of the Policing and Crime bill could allow the installation of CCTV cameras to be a condition of licensing for all pubs, clubs, off-licences and corner shops. Once again we are asked to trust those in authority not to abuse their power. After all they don't spy on law-abiding citizens, and footage is disposed of in a timely manner - right?

Police surveillance footage recently released by the Surveillance and Society Journal shows footage of an operation to crack down on illegal street betting in Chesterfield in 1935 - now that's some retention period!

If you are concerned about the expansion of CCTV proposed in the Policing and Crime bill write to your MP telling him/her about the danger to our liberties if Clause 31 of the bill is passed. You should also write to members of the House of Lords asking them to strike down these powers when the bill reaches the House of Lords.

Posted in cctv general - 12/3/2009

Back door CCTV expansion - Dangerous powers in bill before parliament - 1/3/2009

The issue of CCTV in pubs has hit the headlines in recent weeks after a landlord in North London revealed that police demanded he install CCTV "capturing a head and shoulder shot of every person entering the pub". Under the Licensing Act 2003 police can make recommendations in the granting of licenses, which is still controlled by local authorities.

Now the Policing and Crime Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament, will be used to extend the powers of police to impose licensing conditions not only for pubs and clubs but also shops and off licenses.

Clause 31 of the Bill "makes provision about mandatory licensing conditions relating to alcohol". Specifically this consists of:

a) a small number of mandatory licence conditions (no more than nine) that apply to all new or existing licences and club premises certificates which permit the sale of alcohol;

b) a larger number of permitted conditions, which the licensing authority can, in consultation with responsible authorities, apply to more than one licensed premises or club at a time

The government is asking MPs to grant enabling powers before the mandatory conditions have even been decided. This legislation allows the government to circumvent proper parliamentary debate and constitutes a blank cheque to further erode civil liberties in the UK.

If this bill is passed into law then it will amend the Licensing Act, taking even more power away from local authorities and as a result CCTV could be introduced as a condition of all licenses. Such a power could be added without proper debate and would force anyone wishing to sell alcohol to install CCTV.

The bill has finished its committee stage in the House of Commons, where MPs are meant to scrutinise the legislation and suggest amendments, yet MPs did not contest the measures in Clause 31 and it was "ordered to stand part of the bill".

The bill is expected to get its 3rd reading in the House of Commons soon. Now is the time to write to your MP telling him/her about the danger to our liberties if Clause 31 of this bill is passed. You should also write to members of the House of Lords asking them to strike down these powers when the bill reaches the House of Lords.

There is ample evidence that CCTV is not an effective crime fighting measure. As the evidence against and criticism of surveillance cameras continues to mount it seems that the government is intent on expanding blanket surveillance regardless.

Posted in cctv general - 1/3/2009

CCTV in pubs - the new font-line for liberty - 21/2/2009

It is becoming all too common in the UK for police to impose illiberal demands as a condition of getting a pub license. The latest demand that has come to light is requiring that pubs install CCTV cameras. One landlord in North London was told by local police that he must "install CCTV capturing a head and shoulder shot of every person entering the pub". Nick Gibson who wants to re-open the Drapers Arms in Islington was not happy with this as he quite rightly believes it as an affront to the civil liberties of his customers.

Under the Licensing Act 2003 police can make recommendations in the granting of licenses, which is still controlled by local authorities. However it seems that the police have taken it upon themselves to actually impose conditions. It is effectively the police who are granting or refusing licenses. Police in many areas such as Richmond and Thames Valley have imposed blanket CCTV requirements similar to Islington.

Pubs have effectively become a front-line in the battle over our freedoms in the UK. Pubs now routinely ask for photo ID such as drivers license and passport, whilst some even ask customers to be fingerprinted before having a pint. For more on fingerprinting in pubs see NO2ID.

Many of these measures are introduced under the banner of "PubWatch" or "Safer[Insert name of town]" - shadowy coalitions of bodies that allow policy laundering by local authorities and police. When we asked a local pub who introduced mandatory ID-ing of customers they told us it was the police as part of PubWatch. When we asked the police they said it was the local authority. When we asked the local authority they said it was the pub. Nobody took ownership of the decision. A similar situation will no doubt emerge with regards to CCTV.

Going to a pub is not an illegal act. Under age drinking does not warrant the blanket suspicion and illiberal treatment of us all. CCTV is not an effective crime fighting tool particularly in situations where alcohol fuelled violence takes place.

Unfortunately it seems that far too many people will give up their freedoms for a pint. It's time to boycott illiberal pubs. Don`t give in and get a home-brew kit - get angry and do something. There are many ways in which we can fight for our Liberties.

No CCTV will be at the satellite Convention on Modern Liberty in Bristol on Saturday 28th February.

Posted in cctv general - 21/2/2009

No CCTV at Modern Liberty Convention - 13/2/2009

No CCTV will be taking part in the satellite Convention on Modern Liberty in Bristol on 28th February. The event which will be at the Trinity Centre, Trinity Road, Bristol. No CCTV will be facilitating a campaigners workshop on live and upcoming campaign issues with practical advice on how to get involved.

The Bristol event is a parallel Convention to the main Convention on Modern Liberty in London. There will be live video feeds of the Plenary debates and Keynote speeches from London - a full programme can be found on the Modern Liberty website www.modernliberty.net. The conveners of the Convention describe just why it is so important that we explore freedoms in the UK at this time:

We are entering a dangerous period in our country. Economic turmoil threatens profound hardship and disharmony. Disenchantment with politics is growing and even legitimate protest is threatened by an unprecedented programme of challenges to our rights, freedoms and democracy. Sixty years ago Britain was a proud co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Now it is increasingly centralized, abandoning its historic principles some of which date back to the Magna Carta.

The Convention will ask three broad questions:

Are our freedoms and rights threatened by an over-powerful state and if so how do we defend ourselves from this?
Are dangers to our security from terrorism and other threats, from climate change to pandemics being used to attack our rights, and how can we best defend ourselves?
How can we arouse sustained public interest?

The satellite Convention in Bristol is free to attend and runs from 9.15am to 5.15pm.

Posted in cctv general - 13/2/2009

Constitution committee report slams CCTV expansion - 6/2/2009

Today the House of Lords Constitution Committee published the final report of their Inquiry into Surveillance and Data Collection. The report entitled 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State' observes that: "There has been a profound and continuous expansion in the surveillance apparatus of both the state and the private sector".

In the press release that accompanied the report Lord Goodlad, Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said:

"The UK now has more CCTV cameras and a bigger National DNA Database than any other country. There can be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about us being recorded and pored over by the state."

The committee notes that even police like Graeme Gerrard (Deputy Chief Constable of the Cheshire Constabulary and Chair of ACPO’s CCTV Working Group) acknowledge that CCTV is not nearly as effective as many would have us believe:

“The evidence and academic research that I have seen says it is very effective in places like car parks … but in terms of our town centres, where a lot of the behaviour is violent or disorderly … often fuelled by alcohol, people are not thinking rationally, they get angry and the CCTV camera is the last thing they think about and even the presence of police officers does not deter them … In terms of reducing crime there are mixed results … there was some quite good indication that it reduces the public’s fear of crime."

The committee unfortunately did not pick up on the research that shows CCTV does not reduce fear of crime and suggests that in many cases cameras actually increase fear.

The committee recommends "that the Home Office commission an independent appraisal of the existing research evidence on the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing, detecting and investigating crime". This seems strange as in 2002 the Home Office commissioned Home Office Research Study 252 'Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television:a systematic review' which did exactly that and found that:

"Overall, the best current evidence suggests that CCTV reduces crime to a small degree. CCTV is most effective in reducing vehicle crime in car parks, but it had little or no effect on crime in public transport and city centre settings."

The report also calls for regulation of CCTV in the public and private sector and a code of practise that is legally binding. Whilst this may seem like a sensible approach there is a danger that it will simply add legitimacy to ever expanding camera surveillance. No CCTV feels that such regulation must also define clear unbreachable boundaries to protect the citizen from unnecessary intrusions of the state.

You can download or read the report at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldconst.htm#reports

Posted in cctv general - 6/2/2009

CCTV and police surveillance case at High Court this week - 28/1/2009

By Andrew Wood

In the debate over CCTV the two sides are presented in a very polarised light: those for CCTV believe they are upholding the law and reducing crime; those against believe they are upholding civil liberties and freedoms. But what if CCTV was in fact unlawful? What if its use contravened laws which uphold our rights and freedoms?

Often the only way that such questions of lawfulness are resolved is through court action but the potential costs or loss of livelihood are sufficient to dissuade most people from even starting. I write as someone who is pursuing such a court action by way of a judicial review of police surveillance – namely the "routine" surveillance which police undertake at political events.

Here is a summary of my case, as laid out on the website I have set up www.judicialreview.org.uk:

On 27 April 2005, the claimant - Andrew Wood – attended the Annual General Meeting of Reed Elsevier, a publisher of academic, educational and scientific books and journals. Reed had recently purchased a company which organised arms fairs, including the bi-annual arms fair in Docklands, London called DSEi (Defence Systems & Equipment International Exhibition). The claimant worked for Campaign Against Arms Trade, which opposes arms exports, as their media co-ordinator. He was one of a number of shareholders from CAAT attending the AGM in the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, London.

CAAT had liaised with the Metropolitan Police prior to the AGM; it was agreed that two representatives would leaflet shareholders at the hotel entrance. No other demonstration took place outside the hotel.

The AGM started with an address from the directors to a very sparsely attended meeting. The AGM was interrupted when two women, who were not CAAT staff, chanted slogans opposing arms. After they'd been ejected by security guards then the meeting continued as normal. Later, shareholders were invited to ask questions of the Board; the decision by Reed to purchase a company organising arms fairs was contested.

At the end of the AGM, the claimant left with the research co-ordinator of CAAT, Ian Prichard. After leaving the hotel they stopped to talk with one of the CAAT staff who'd been leafleting. The first photograph exhibited by the police shows this conversation; the association apparently triggered the subsequent surveillance of the claimant and Mr Prichard. The police do not claim they knew of the claimant's employment by CAAT prior to the surveillance.

As the CAAT staff conversed, a police vehicle drew up beside them and an officer got out to photograph them. He stood close-by, repeatedly and intrusively photographing them. The police claim that one of the women who'd been ejected from the AGM associated with the group, which is denied.

The claimant and the research co-ordinator left the Square to walk to the tube station nearby, followed by police officers on foot. A police vehicle drew-up and a number of officers stopped the two men. They were repeatedly photographed and questioned. The research co-ordinator answered some of the police questions but the claimant replied that he was going about his lawful business and the two walked to Bond Street underground station, again followed by police. After passing through the ticket barriers at the station, the claimant was asked for his ticket by one of the underground staff. The police admit that they asked the underground staff to examine the claimant's ticket to obtain his details. The pursuit ended when the two men continued to the station platform.

The police have provided exhibits of officer's notebooks and computer records showing the claimant and others were under police surveillance as they left the AGM. Photographs of the claimant and other CAAT staff were also filed. Police say the photographs are used to produce photo-sheets for identification at other events.

The claimant believes the police actions are in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, in particular Article 8 - respect for private and family life; Article 10 - freedom of Expression; Article 11 - freedom of assembly and association; and Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination. The full text of the European Convention on Human Rights can be found at the appropriate page of the European Court of Human Rights

The case is in the high court this week – watch this space!

More information about the case including court documents can be found at www.judicialreview.org.uk.

Posted in cctv general - 28/1/2009

Play the CCTV Treasure Hunt - 20/1/2009

A website has been set up that turns the tables on urban surveillance systems by ‘watching the watchers’ using your mobile phone to map CCTV locations around the UK. The CCTV Treasure Hunt is a game created by a pair of UK artists that can be played as part of an organised event or as an individual. It's simple to play:

1. Use your camera phone (or other available photographic-device), to capture a shot of any CCTV cameras you spot around town - remember to protect your own anonymity…

2. Make a note of the CCTV camera's location - the more detail the better! For example: ‘Corner of X and Y Street, Random Town, UK‘ or ‘Street Number, Street Name, Random Town, UK’ is better than just ‘Random Town‘. A postcode is also helpful if known…

3. Send your picture plus the details of the camera's location via MMS or Email to: iseecctv@googlemail.com

4. Your photo will then be added to the map on the home page, as well as the gallery. You will remain anonymous at all times!

The treasure hunt can also be played with others starting from a central meeting location:

Participants are given an explorers pack which includes a map covering a 3-mile radius around the base location, a small Guide to the game and a mask to protect their anonymity.

Participants then have 1 hour to scout the area on the map and find, photograph and mark on the map as many CCTV cameras as possible. The player or team which finds the most cameras wins the game!

The CCTV Treasure Hunt has already been played in Newcastle and most recently last weekend in Nottingham. If you'd like to set up a hunt in your area then visit the Treasure Hunt website where you can get advice on organising a game and ask to be sent copies of the explorers packs.

Posted in cctv general - 20/1/2009

CCTV spies on restaurant diners and records private conversation - 13/1/2009

The Telegraph reports that CCTV has been used at a National Trust Restaurant to film and record private conversations of diners. A woman who, with her family, visited the Manor Restaurant in Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire discovered that their meal had been surveilled in this way after she wrote to complain about poor food and slow service.

But she was left astonished by the restaurant's response. Simon Offen, the catering manager, emailed her to say he disputed her version of events after he had "watched and listened with interest to the video recording of her table".

Increasingly CCTV is appearing around the country with the ability to record sound as well as images. This flies in the face of published guidelines. Last year the Information Commissioner's Office released a revised CCTV code of practice in which the issue of recording conversations was highlighted. The code states:

CCTV must not be used to record conversations between members of the public as this is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified. You should choose a system without this facility if possible. If your system comes equipped with a sound recording facility then you should turn this off or disable it in some other way.

Yet signs, such as the one below, warning people that sound is being recorded are becoming increasingly common. Action must be taken now to stop this extension of already intrusive surveillance equipment. If you are aware of an establishment that either records sound or states that it records sound then you should contact them and tell them they are breaching the CCTV code of practice. If they do not take steps to remove sound recording or correct their signs then you should visit the Information Commissioner's Office and complete a complaint form. The CCTV code of practice is based on data protection principles laid out in the Data Protection Act.

In 2007 the CCTV advisory body CameraWatch stated that 90% of surveillance cameras may be breaching the Data Protection Act. Clearly the code of practice is currently not being enforced. Perhaps if enough complaints were received from privacy conscious members of the public things would change.

Posted in cctv general - 13/1/2009

2009: will the public and decision makers heed CCTV warnings - 1/1/2009

During 2008 a number of politicians and high ranking public officials spoke out against the use of surveillance cameras in the UK. The year also saw yet more reports emerge that criticised the effectiveness of CCTV. One such report, entitled 'Why are fear and distrust spiralling in twenty-first century Britain?', was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in October.

The report explores the issue of why the fear of crime is so much higher than actual crime and argues that the cause of growing fear and distrust is visible physical inequality and segregation, combined with a commercially driven media with a vested interest in promoting fear.

On CCTV the report points out:

“mounting evidence shows that private security and CCTV does not reduce fear of crime or actual crime and might in fact increase crime. According to a study funded by the Scottish Office in Glasgow, there was no improvement in feelings of safety after CCTV was introduced, while the area studied actually showed an increase in crime. The author concluded that the ‘electronic eye on the street’ threatens to erode the ‘natural surveillance’ of ‘mutual policing’ by individuals and represents a retreat from ‘collective and individual responsibility to self interest and a culture of fear.”

The report though also shows that the message that CCTV is ineffective is still not getting through to policy makers - it highlights a disturbing new type of cctv deployment in the UK: "in outlying parts of Liverpool, drones, which are the unmanned spy planes used in Iraq, are used to patrol deprived parts of the city".

Undoubtedly 2009 will see yet more public figures speak out against CCTV and still more reports that question the ethics and effectiveness of blanket surveillance in the UK. The question is will the wider public and the local and national decision makers heed the warnings or continue expanding the surveillance state.

Posted in cctv general - 1/1/2009

How to beat the recession - cut back on CCTV - 21/12/2008

The Daily Mail reports that councils around the country are cutting back on CCTV amidst the economic downturn. The Mail quotes Surveillance expert Professor Nigel Gilbert, "who last year produced a report for the Royal Academy of Engineers calling for a halt to CCTV cameras until their need was proven". Gilbert told the Mail:

The evidence suggests surveillance cameras are completely useless as a way of reducing crime, their only use is as a way of collecting evidence a crime has been committed- it doesn't stop it happening in the first place. The public has been misled into believing that it's a silver bullet for crime reduction and actually it is not. I suspect that councils are realising this and therefore it is not a very high priority to look out for crime on CCTV systems. It is not an efficient or cost-effective use of resources.

The article states that it costs Worcester City Council £140,000 a year to pay staff to monitor the town's 63 surveillance cameras "a burden it can no longer afford".

Also quoted is Dr David Murakami-Wood, from The Surveillance Studies Network who said:

Councils are now having cameras on with no one watching or they are having to cut back staffing levels in the recession.CCTV is expensive - local councils did not really think about these costs when they joined the rush to install cameras funded by central government.Now many are realising that they have been saddled with a massive extra cost that in hard times like these can eat into their limited budgets for providing other forms of public safety.

There is a mountain of evidence showing that CCTV is a waste of public money and yet councils around the country continue to fritter money away on this illiberal technology. Now even more so than ever councils should take great care with public funds. Cutting back on CCTV would be a way to free councils from debt and citizens from unwarranted surveillance.

Posted in cctv general - 21/12/2008

L'Express article - London: In the Kingdom of Big Brother - 12/12/2008

[The following is a transaltion of an article that appeared in French magazine L'Express 10th September 2008 entitled 'Londres Au royaume de Big Brother'.]

In the British capital surveillance cameras check everything: streets, cars, public transport, shopping malls… The inhabitants want more, even though some parliamentarians and NGO's are worried about their effects on privacy.

Graffiti fills one whole panel of the wall two steps away from Oxford Circus in the heart of London. In four words written in white paint it summarises a British peculiarity: "One nation under CCTV", a cynical reference to the American oath of allegiance to the American flag which proclaims the USA as "one nation under God". Under the fresco, passers by observe a drawing of a security guard with his dog and a small boy with a red hood on top of a ladder, paint roller in hand. The author of this picture, the artist Banksy, painted it under cover of night in April 2008, without being caught by the camera half way up the picture.

To avoid the electronic eye is quite an achievement in the British capital. Everywhere they follow the pedestrian, they spy on the stroller, they watch the driver. Everywhere notices announce the existence of CCTV: in the Tube, on the double decker buses, in the streets, at the stations, in the hospitals, in the housing estates; in front of pubs, night clubs, offices, factories. The police even sport mini-cameras on their helmets! All together Britain has 4.2 million cameras, one for every four inhabitants.

To continue reading this article click here

Posted in cctv general - 12/12/2008

Update: CCTV sanity in Devon - more from the policeman - 1/12/2008

Further to our previous blog entry, we have tracked down the minutes of the various meetings at which Inspector Paul Morgan of South Hams East expressed his views on CCTV.

On 16th June Morgan addressed an informal meeting of Totnes council about the possible introduction of a CCTV system in the town. The minutes note:

Inspector Morgan stated that in his personal opinion, he does not favour CCTV. It is not a deterrent, but a reactive system of policing. CCTV cameras do not affect the behavior in terms of anti-social behaviour or alcohol abuse, and these types of incidents can be targeted specifically by other means.

On 1st September Inspector Morgan handed out copies of Bruce Schneier's article "CCTV Doesn't Keep Us Safe, Yet the Cameras are Everywhere" to a meeting of the full council. As documented by the minutes:

Inspector Morgan stated that there were alternatives to CCTV and this is good investigative police work, which normally obtains the same results at the end of the day.

What a shame more police are not willing to come out and defend good police work over the civil liberty destroying and costly charade that is CCTV.

Posted in cctv general - 1/12/2008

UK and Iran agree on CCTV and Human Rights - 12/11/2008

It seems that the UK government's view of CCTV with regards to privacy/human rights issues the same as that of the government of Iran.

A debate has been taking place in Iran over the use of surveillance cameras. One national security official, Kazem Jalali, warned that the program may violate privacy rights and that any use of the technology must be within existing privacy guidelines. This week, the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission has declared that CCTV in Iran will not violate privacy rights.

In a speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) earlier this year Gordon Brown said: "let us not pretend that CCTV is intrinsically the enemy of liberty. Used correctly, with the right and proper safeguards [..] it actually helps give them back their liberty, the liberty to go about their everyday lives with reassurance".

Meanwhile Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "The use of advanced and rightful techniques in dealing with offenders should be employed by the (NAJA)[Iran's Law Enforcement Agency] forces". NAJA chief Brigadier General Ismail Ahmadi-Moqaddam is reported to have said that he would use surveillance cameras only to monitor crime and not to spy on citizens.

Last December the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution expressing deep concern at the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the same time, last December, Privacy International categorised the UK as an "endemic surveillance society" in their 2007 International Privacy Ranking.

The UK as a supposed liberal Western democracy with a system of Common Law should be setting an example to other countries not vying with them for the top position in human rights abuses league tables.

Posted in cctv general - 12/11/2008

More CCTV sanity in Devon - this time from a policeman - 27/10/2008

A senior police officer in Devon has called for a debate into the use of CCTV in the UK. Inspector Paul Morgan of South Hams East expressed concerns about the way that CCTV is introduced unquestioningly:

We're probably the most monitored country in the world per head of population. As a citizen I think there are questions about whether it is the most appropriate use of funds to reducing crime levels.

A large amount of the UK public believes that CCTV is an effective way of fighting crime and so politicians at both a local and national level promote CCTV schemes to boost their popularity. But the public is not well informed and it should be the job of politicians to make evidence based decisions rather than waste public money on ineffective and illiberal measures like surveillance cameras.

Inspector Morgan recently warned Totnes town councillors:

Systems cost a hell of a lot of money to maintain. In a time of reducing crime, is it something that you want to invest a lot of money in?

We agree that a full debate into CCTV is urgently needed, one that looks at all of the facts and considers whether the £500 million of public money could have been spent far more effectively to strengthen our communities and reduce crime. If we do not then yet more cameras will be installed, including a new generation of cameras with technologies such as facial and behavioral recognition that will further erode the freedoms of law abiding citizens and irretrievably change our society into an Orwellian nightmare.

Posted in cctv general - 27/10/2008

DPP warns of dangers of unchecked surveillance state - 23/10/2008

Sir Ken Macdonald QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions has spoken out about the growing surveillance state during a CPS lecture. The lecture entitled 'Coming out of the Shadows' was Macdonald's last before stepping down as head of the Crown Prosecution Service.

In his speech Macdonald pointed out the dangers inherent in state powers blindly following technological solutions:

Over the last thirty years technology has given each of us, as individual citizens, enormous gifts of access to information and knowledge. Sometimes it seems as if everything in the world is at our fingertips and this doubtless has made our lives immeasurably richer.

But technology also gives the State enormous powers of access to knowledge and information about each one of us. And the ability to collect and store it at will. Every second of every day, in everything we do.

He went on to warn of the consequences of letting the surveillance state expand unchecked:

[...] we need to understand that it is in the nature of State power that decisions taken in the next few months and years about how the State may use these powers, and to what extent, are likely to be irreversible. They will be with us forever. And they in turn will be built upon. So we should take very great care to imagine the world we are creating before we build it. We might end up living with something we can't bear.

We at No CCTV have consistently stressed that better community reduces crime, technology does not.

Posted in cctv general - 23/10/2008

Body cams - Police and wearable CCTV - 18/10/2008

Police around the country are increasingly starting to wear CCTV cameras on their bodies. Police in Banbury recently began trialling the so-called "body cams".

Surveillance cameras erode trust and so reduce a sense of community. Body cams take the erosion of trust to a new level - now the state doesn't even trust police officers. And it seems that the state doesn't want us to trust them either - body cams are yet another piece of paraphernalia that serves to further distance citizens from the human being that is the police officer. Police look more and more like the military.

So who claims body cams do any good? And is the dehumanisation of police officers offset by some huge reduction in crime? PC Froggat of Banbury police spoke to the Banbury Guardian:

Mr Froggat said the cameras had cut back on bad behaviour. "It's been a huge deterrant at close quarters during night patrols," he said.
('Police, Camera, Action', Banbury Guardian print edition, 26 June 2008, emphasis added)

An amazing claim, as this interview was published just 5 days after police began using body cams! Amazing because previous assessment of new policing tools has taken rigorous analysis by independent assessors measuring substantial data collected before and after implementation, and with specially set up control areas. Then again, not so surprising really considering that when rigorous analysis of CCTV technology is conducted by independent assessors measuring substantial data collected before and after implementation and with specially set up control areas, the results always show that CCTV is ineffective and a waste of money...

Posted in cctv general - 18/10/2008

Freedom Not Fear - 9/10/2008

On Saturday, groups all over Europe will be taking part in events to protest against the growing Surveillance Society. NO2ID has teamed up with the Open Rights Group to show Parliament the 'Big Picture' by constructing a giant image made out of thousands of pictures taken by UK citizens of surveillance state ephemera. You can join this protest from anywhere in the UK by simply sending them a photo of the surveillance state in your life. Images of the signs of mass surveillance, and any form of intrusive ID or state control - cameras, cards, scanners, forms, whatever you like.

Already hundreds of photos of surveillance cameras and other database state ephemera from all over the country have been emailed or uploaded to Flickr but there's still time to send more. Take a photograph with your (digital) camera or mobile phone and send a copy to FreedomNotFear@no2id.net

Posted in cctv general - 9/10/2008

CCTV in schools update - 30/9/2008

As reported in the media last month the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) has raised concern about CCTV in schools. ATL has conducted a preliminary survey of teachers throughout the UK and found that 85% of those questioned said CCTV was operating in their schools, often used to monitor the behaviour of the pupils within school hours. 10% of those surveyed said CCTV was operating in the toilets. And over 50% admitted to concerns about the use of CCTV around their schools. There are huge civil liberty issues regarding the use of CCTV in schools - children have no means to express any opposition despite there being very strict rules regarding juvenile privacy. We share the concerns raised by Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) that surveillance cameras in schools act simply to normalise state surveillance - if you grow up surrounded by surveillance you are less likely to question the ever growing police state as an adult.

So what of the perceived trade off of giving away freedoms for this ever elusive security? Does CCTV in schools actually do anything positive? According to a report in Security Management written by John J. Strauchs, Senior Principal of Strauchs LLC:

"Schools are not the largest market by any means, but they are the most troubling. There is a virtual pandemic of schools installing video cameras willy-nilly [...] The lay public, unfortunately, doesn't understand the technology and ignorantly believes that the simple act of installing cameras stops crime. Cash-starved high schools, in particular, may be choosing video surveillance over higher teacher pay, text books, or afterschool programs for students. ... With very few exceptions, it is almost a useless tool to prevent serious crimes in most schools because they rarely, if ever, have the staff to effectively monitor the cameras."

So, teachers are not keen on CCTV in schools. Neither is the CCTV industry. What about the kids? Well according to the BBC kids just love being surveilled. In a bizarre propaganda stunt, BBC's Newsround interviewed a group of school children about surveillance cameras, whilst they were at school, presumably under the gaze of their teachers. Sure enough the kids rolled off a litany of pro-surveillance hyperbole, reminiscent of when Saddam Hussein appeared on television in 1990 to ask British hostages how they were enjoying their stay.

It is deeply inappropriate to put children in this situation and ask them to comment on a topic of which they cannot possibly understand the full ramifications. CCTV in schools is wrong. And no amount of children saying they like being filmed will make it right. We need to ask serious questions about what our society has become that we need to film children at school as though they were criminals.

Posted in cctv general - 30/9/2008

Guilty...until we get the CCTV clock fixed - 25/9/2008

Last week Norfolk police used CCTV to alert the East Anglian public to three wiley bag snatchers - oh no sorry, just three normal people, that is three innocent people. It seems that their trusted friend, Mr CCTV camera, had the wrong date and time attached to the images it was recording, resulting in the police giving pictures of wholly innocent people walking through a car park to the local press. Quite ironic really, considering that car parks are just about the only places where CCTV has been found in the past to have any crimefighting value.

Posted in cctv general - 25/9/2008

NO CCTV in L'Express - 18/9/2008

NO CCTV were recently interviewed for an article about CCTV in the UK for French magazine L'Express. The article can now be read online (in french) on the L'Express website. We will post in a translation of the article in due course.

UPDATE: The transaltion can be read at http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/blog/lexpress_article_-_london-_in_the_kingdom_of_big_brother.htm

Posted in cctv general - 18/9/2008

Police claims that cameras help with crime clear up not bourne out - 18/8/2008

NO-CCTV finds the CCTV plot

Earlier this year senior Police admitted to the House of Lords Constitution Committee that CCTV is not effective at deterring crime. Instead they claimed that: "The principal measure of effectiveness as far as the Police Service is concerned is in relation to the support of the investigative proces". The only problem they said was that there is little research with regard to CCTV as an investigative tool. Of course there is a mountain of evidence that shows what they had to admit, namely that CCTV doew not reduce crime.

The Police are effectively saying "Okay we said it would reduce crime, but the figures show it doesn't, so instead we are now saying it helps in solving crime - and as there are no figures on that you'll have to trust us, after all we're the police. We need more CCTV, lots more."

Except there are figures. Last year the London Assembly obtained figures for number of cameras vs crime clear up rates accross the 32 London Boroughs. These figures show that increasing the number of cameras does not increase the crime clear up rate. Basically, there is NO linear dependence between the number of cameras and percentage of crime clear-up in London, where there are over 10,000 state run cameras.

No CCTV has produced a graph showing the non-relationship between cameras and crime clear up rate. See here.

Posted in cctv general - 18/8/2008

CameraWatch join calls to ''upgrade'' CCTV - 13/8/2008

Today's edition of You and Yours on BBC Radio 4 featured an item on CCTV and compliance with the Information Commissioners code of practise. On the programme was a representative of CameraWatch - a CCTV users' group that: "Support the CCTV industry to ensure systems are operated in accordance with data protection and other legal requirements".

CameraWatch say that nine out of ten CCTV systems may not comply with the code and therefore the Data Protection Act. Whilst it is important that cameras are operated according to guidelines, there are wider issues that the programme did not touch upon, such as privacy, civil liberties and the worrying trend towards "upgrades" that further reduce the freedoms of law abiding citizens. In fact CameraWatch explicitly supported the industry, Police and Home Office line as laid out in the National CCTV Strategy. Their representative told the programme that the poor quality of images of current camera systems means that efforts should be made to install new cameras with high quality images - thus keeping public confidence in CCTV and increasing compliance with the code of practise!

The public has been told that CCTV is an effective tool in the fight against crime when it is not. Now the industry says CCTV does not work and they have the answer - upgrade the systems! Where is the public debate about the implications of installing high resolution, networked surveillance cameras with facial recognition, behaviour recognition and other technologies as are currently being trialed in China?.

Posted in cctv general - 13/8/2008

Blackpool CCTV review - 8/8/2008

The Blackpool Citizen reports that the future of Blackpool's CCTV is under scrutiny. The newspaper says:

A working group has been formed to review public realm CCTV in Blackpool with the aim of reviewing its purpose and effectiveness and determine whether it achieves its aims.

The topics that will be covered in the scrutiny process are: "whether it meets your needs as a resident, if it makes you feel safe, if it deters crime and if it can be improved across the town". Note that issues such as privacy and removing the cameras to allow law abiding citizens to go about their daily business without being spied upon do not feature. Also shouldn't the council know if the cameras deter crime or not?

Of course the reality is that CCTV cameras do not deter crime - all of the evidence points to their ineffectiveness. It is likely this so called consultation is being used to justify CCTV "upgrades" in Blackpool that will simply further reduce the civil liberties of local residents.

Blackpool Council is asking residents to send their thoughts on CCTV to Georgina Atkinson. Submissions should be made by Friday 22nd August 2008, more details at http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/news/cctvscrutiny.htm

We urge Blackpool residents to read the substantial evidence against surveillance cameras, and to tell the council what they can do with their CCTV.

Posted in cctv general - 8/8/2008

Yet more evidence against CCTV - 1/8/2008

In a recent Crypto-Gram newsletter, Bruce Schneier includes his Guardian article about the ineffectiveness of CCTV (featured in a previous entry), together with some interesting CCTV links. The links include CCTV research, information on London's cameras and privacy concerns.

Posted in cctv general - 1/8/2008

''More cameras!'' - The CCTV industry's response to criticism - 4/7/2008

This week the Guardian published a response to Bruce Schneier's criticism of CCTV cameras. The response claims that CCTV "has a vital role in the fight against crime". And who is it putting forward this view? None other than the managing director of Atec Security - suppliers of ... yes you guessed it, CCTV technology!

On their website Atec acknowledges the growing sceptisim about the effectiveness of CCTV in the UK, including the recent statistic of only three per cent of London's street robberies being solved using CCTV images - but their solution like everyone else in the surveillance game is more technology and more oppressive cameras. The police and CCTV industry have been admitting the ineffectiveness of CCTV since the release of the National CCTV Strategy last October - but the reason they have done this is to call for the expansion and upgrading of surveillance cameras in the UK, to a level that is no longer adequately described by the phrase "closed-circuit television cameras". Cameras do not do what they have been telling us they do for the last decade - they do NOT reduce crime. Despite this, the solution put forward by the state and the CCTV industry is not to scale back the cameras and save public money.

In the Guardian Atec says:

"If standards are better regulated and combined with the rapidly accelerating development of CCTV technology - such as advanced facial recognition and analytics - CCTV will become more widely acknowledged as a vital part of the criminal justice system".

A surveillance "arms race" is set to break out in the UK and companies like Atec stand to make a lot of money, whilst the citizens of the UK will simply continue to loose yet more freedoms to the ever growing surveillance state.

Posted in cctv general - 4/7/2008

Security expert warns now is time to address CCTV limits - 27/6/2008

Security expert Bruce Schneier has issued a warning about CCTV in the Guardian this week. As a crime fighting tool Schneier points out that surveillance cameras are not very effective: "This fact has been demonstrated again and again: by a comprehensive study for the Home Office in 2005, by several studies in the US, and again with new data announced last month by New Scotland Yard. They actually solve very few crimes, and their deterrent effect is minimal."

Schneier concludes that cameras are not worth the £500 million or so of public money that has been invested but also issues a stark warning about where surveillance cameras are headed:

We live in a unique time in our society: the cameras are everywhere, and we can still see them. Ten years ago, cameras were much rarer than they are today. And in 10 years, they'll be so small you won't even notice them. Already, companies like L-1 Security Solutions are developing police-state CCTV surveillance technologies like facial recognition for China, technology that will find their way into countries like the UK. The time to address appropriate limits on this technology is before the cameras fade from notice.

Posted in cctv general - 27/6/2008

Brown sexes up CCTV evaluations - 23/6/2008

Last week the Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) about 'Security and Liberty'.

Brown hailed technology as the saviour of society, and said we must listen to those who say "that for too long we have used nineteenth century means to solve twenty first century problems". Of course surveillance cameras were part of his gushing praise for modernity: "CCTV cuts crime, and makes people feel safer - in some cases, it actually helps give them back their liberty, the liberty to go about their everyday lives with reassurance". What an incredible piece of doublespeak - how can liberty be increased by decreasing it?

And how did Brown come to the conclusion that CCTV cuts crime? Well he told his IPPR fan club that in Newcastle "after CCTV was installed, burglaries fell by 56 per cent, criminal damage by 34 per cent, and theft by 11 per cent". All seems done and dusted then doesn't it.

Except that he forgot to mention a few minor details. Like the fact that in a detailed report on CCTV in the UK - 'Effects of Closed-Circuit Television on Crime' (Welsh and Farrington, 2003) the effect of CCTV on crime in Newcastle was described as "undesirable". The headline figures that Brown used to prove CCTV's worth need to be looked at alongside underlying trends in crime and figures from areas in Newcastle without CCTV. In Newcastle, total crime fell by 21.6% in the area with cameras but by 29.7% in the area where there were no cameras! The fall in burglary that Brown uses is a fall from 17 a month to 9 in the area with CCTV compared to a fall from 75 a month to 46 where no cameras were installed.

So Brown's CCTV defence doesn't stand up at all. Neither does his unquestioning love of technology. Better community reduces crime, tecnology does not.

Posted in cctv general - 23/6/2008

David Davis resigns over removal of freedoms - 12/6/2008

The BBC reports that the shadow home secretary David Davis MP has resigned over the "slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government" in light of the controversial vote to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. In his resignation statement, Mr Davis said:

But in truth, 42 days is just one if perhaps the most salient example of the insidious surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms. We will have shortly the most intrusive identity card system in the world, a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it. We've witnessed an assault on jury trials, that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary abuse by the state; shortcuts with our justice system that make our justice system neither firm nor fair; and a creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.

The freedoms we enjoy were fought for by our political ancestors. Our current politicians, it seems, are happy to squander them. We salute David Davis - such a stand is long overdue.

Watch David Davis' resignation speech at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450728.stm

Posted in cctv general - 12/6/2008

''Golden Shield'' - China's CCTV laboratory - 12/6/2008

Naomi Klein reports in Rolling Stone Magazine on the growing number of surveillance cameras in China. American companies such as IBM, Honeywell and General Electric are trying out the latest technology in a country where there are less human rights and civil liberties issues to deal with.

Many of the technology trends that we warned of in our Report are being installed in China, such as a network of surveillance cameras - both public and private cameras - patched into the police system. The UK government has expressed its desire for such a system in their National CCTV Strategy, and the recent acknowledgement by the police that CCTV is not an effective crime fighting tool is being used to push forward a new upgraded network of surveillance cameras.

The hi-tech surveillance agenda in China is part of a program called "Golden Shield", Naomi Klein writes:

This is how this Golden Shield will work: Chinese citizens will be watched around the clock through networked CCTV cameras and remote monitoring of computers. They will be listened to on their phone calls, monitored by digital voice-recognition technologies. Their Internet access will be aggressively limited through the country's notorious system of online controls known as the "Great Firewall." Their movements will be tracked through national ID cards with scannable computer chips and photos that are instantly uploaded to police databases and linked to their holder's personal data. This is the most important element of all: linking all these tools together in a massive, searchable database of names, photos, residency information, work history and biometric data. When Golden Shield is finished, there will be a photo in those databases for every person in China: 1.3 billion faces.

Here in the UK it is time for us to stand up and say enough is enough, we must not allow the government to roll out a Golden Shield type program here.

You can also hear Naomi Klein talk about Golden Shield on the Guardian podcast at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2008/jun/03/dennis.klein

Posted in cctv general - 12/6/2008

In wake of surveillance report - No CCTV calls for halt in CCTV expansion - 9/6/2008

The Home Affairs committee today published it’s ‘A Surveillance Society?’ report. Campaign group No CCTV calls on decision makers to halt the proliferation of surveillance cameras in the UK in light of the overwhelming evidence that they do not work and are an unnecessary intrusion into the lives of law abiding citizens.

The report points out that: “Loss of privacy through excessive surveillance erodes trust between the individual and the Government and can change the nature of the relationship between citizen and state.”[Summary p5]

The committee recommends that: “The Home Office should ensure that any extension of the use of camera surveillance is justified by evidence of its effectiveness for its intended purpose, and that its function and operation are understood by the public.” [Ground rules for Government p7]. However the report repeatedly references the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of CCTV:

The Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing, Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP shared this view. He acknowledged a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of camera surveillance in the prevention of crime but was convinced of its value:
- Can I point to a definitive national study that quantifies in any way its success as a deterrent? No, I cannot [...]
- [Report, paragraph 208]

The report recommends that:

Under camera surveillance in public spaces, individuals have very little control over whether or not their images and movements are captured and over how they are stored and used. This lack of choice intensifies the obligation on camera operators and regulators to behave responsibly and to deploy surveillance technology only where it is of proven benefit in the fight against crime and where this benefit outweighs any detrimental effect on individual liberty.
[Report, paragraph 221]

Since the inquiry showed that there is no proven benefit in the fight against crime we believe that local authorities and the police should cease the expansion of CCTV in the UK and begin to remove the existing cameras. This would return some much needed trust into our society, reduce public expenditure and claw back some civil liberties for citizens of the UK.

We contend that better community reduces crime, technology does not.

Read our full press release at http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/press/press_release_3.pdf

Posted in cctv general - 9/6/2008

UK surveillance sharing - 27/4/2008

The Inquirer reports that:

Under the authorisation signed last July 4 by Jacqui Smith, video feeds and still images captured from roadside TV cameras, along with personal data derived from them, can be transmitted out of the UK to countries such as the US, that are outside the European Economic Area.

No CCTV has consistently warned that local decisions can have huge implications for the civil liberties of UK citizens. This latest revelation is a stark reminder of the repsonsibility that local politicians and decision makers have.

Posted in cctv general - 27/4/2008

National cctv strategy starts to bite - 24/3/2008

The Daily Mail reports that police are demanding access to Britain’s local council CCTV cameras “so they can analyse physical movements that could help identify criminals”. This is all part of the Home Office’s National CCTV Strategy, which includes proposals to create a network of UK surveillance cameras so that the entire country can be accessed by police/security services from a central hub.

This is a nightmare vision - Bentham’s Panopticon - HM Prison UK.

Posted in cctv general - 24/3/2008

cctv in schools - 18/3/2008

As reported in the Telegraph cctv is now being used in many schools to monitor both teachers and pupils. Where is the research that shows the effects of such surveillance? Where is the public debate? What are our children growing up to perceive as normal?

It is obvious that cctv in classrooms has nothing to do with protecting children or teachers but everything to do with the national obsession to surveille.

Posted in cctv general - 18/3/2008

CCTV sanity in Devon! - 3/3/2008

The Telegraph reports that a council in Devon have opted not to install CCTV. The district council quite rightly decided that to do so would infringe law abiding citizens’ human rights. They should also have worked out that it does not reduce crime and is a huge waste of money, but hey - it’s a start.

Posted in cctv general - 3/3/2008

It’s official - cctv is a waste of money - 28/2/2008

The Times reports that local council spending on CCTV and other surveillance technologies is set to push up council tax bills in the UK. The Local Government Minister, John Healey warned that authorities risk being capped if they propose increases of 5% or more. Surely local authorities should be made to justify the public money they spend - the evidence shows that cctv is not an effective tool in the fight against crime.

Posted in cctv general - 28/2/2008

email: