Snap-crappy: 183 Brit local authorities operate 80,000 CCTV cams between them, says surveillance watchdog
- Reference: 1604660471
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/11/06/surveillance_camera_commissioner_80000_half_uk_councils/
- Source link:
In a public plea asking councils to take compliance with surveillance laws seriously, Tony Porter lifted the lid on the scale and depth of CCTV camera deployment across Great Britain.
The figure of 80,000 cameras across 183 councils covers just under half of Britain's 343 local authorities (LAs), meaning district and county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan districts and London boroughs.
Local authorities have access to "recent innovations such as dash cams and body-worn video" deployed across the length and breadth of boroughs and counties, as Porter explained in a recent blog post asking councils to ensure they comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
"I unequivocally support LAs having the right to legitimately use surveillance camera technologies where it's both necessary and proportionate for them to do so. The caveat to my support however is that any such use must be lawful, ethical and conducted within a clear and transparent framework of legitimacy which can be held to effective and independent account," [1]wrote the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, echoing calls he first made [2]five years ago .
That framework stems from [3]section 29 of the PofF Act , which creates a statutory code of practice for CCTV operators overseen by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. Yet councils appear to believe that showing they comply with the code is not a high priority.
Just half of councils across the UK responded to a survey issued by the commissioner asking whether they were obeying the code and the law, though Porter pointed out that the survey was issued just as the first UK lockdown hit earlier this year, meaning they did have bigger things to worry about.
Porter has previously faced stiff resistance from councils who believe they answer to nobody when it comes to CCTV cameras, with some even [4]describing his transparency initiatives as security risks . Last year the commissioner suggested councils hold CCTV control room open days to let the public take a peak inside and ask questions.
"It's interesting that a small minority of LAs say they're working in partnership with members of the public," noted Porter in his recent blog. "This may be where there's volunteers monitoring CCTV for LAs, links with community groups/neighbourhood watch or housing associations."
The Surveillance Camera Commissioner also operates a certification scheme where councils can proudly boast that they're doing the right thing. So far 100 organisations have signed up to that.
In December Porter's current run as commissioner ends, and he does not expect to be reappointed. He concluded: "I like to think I've left the surveillance space in a much better place than when I started and established great foundations for my successor to build on." ®
Get our [5]Tech Resources
[1] https://videosurveillance.blog.gov.uk/2020/10/20/survey-of-local-authorities-compliance-with-the-protection-of-freedoms-act-2012/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2015/05/27/surveillance_commish_pleads_with_authorities_to_listen_to_him/
[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/29/enacted
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/29/surcamcom_annual_report/
[5] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: The horse has bolted
Since they claim to have no knowledge!!!!!
Phone highways and ask them to remove unauthorised Camera's as you beleive they are being used by peodophiles to monitor children, give them 7 days to comply or you'll report to the peoples champion "The Sun" or other sleazepaper.
Mention the ICO https://ico.org.uk/ and ask who you need to consult about information requests about CCTV coverage of an event you where involved in, like Damage to your vehicle whilst you where present since its on their equipment.
Ask if you can put up your own unauthorised Camera as well, whats the penalty, would they threaten to immediately remove for instance.
Also if you climb up (a ladder) and remove the illegal camera is that OK, can you have it since its not theirs and obviously illegally abandoned (although presumable fixed illegally to their lamp post) and as long as you don't damage the lamppost obviously.
Point out their isn't a notice of CCTV and a data controller identification so if its theirs i THINK they are in breach of something or other.
Anon since this is me having fun and not legal advice and i'm too scared of the MAN to do any of these things (I definately wouldn't paintball the camera either)
Re: The horse has bolted
"I definately[sic] wouldn't paintball the camera either"
Oh, I would - you will find out who owns them much faster that way.
It will be in the parish newspaper about people vandalising xxx's new cameras within the week
Re: The horse has bolted
Are any pointing at homes? would you buy a house covered by a camera? the tabloids would indeed be interested.
Re: The horse has bolted
Some cameras like that appeared around here a while ago. They were put up on behalf of a housing developer to measure traffic flows to prove that there was road capacity for them build x000 new houses.
Such a shame that the cable to the camera appeared to be damaged when I saw it - they didn't get any useful data from that (and the council were made aware that the evidence they tried to present was bollocks).
Coincidentally there was also a drive-over pneumatic sensor at a nearby junction that appeared to have a full-circumference leak in the rubber.
Obviously I've no idea whether that was sabotage or who may have done it but I would certainly buy them a pint if I did.
Re: The horse has bolted
Hairspray is good for this so I've been told. Doesn't look borked from the outside but any footage is unusable.
Or a piece of 2x2 if within reach.
Surveillance cameras
Very few of them are actually closed circuit. I'm sure some will argue that the term CCTV has lost all meaning and now just refers to any and all cameras, but I think it's useful to be clear what we're actually talking about. A closed system that can only be used by a small number of people with the correct authority may still not be great in terms of privacy, but would be a hell of a lot better than a bunch of insecure webcams that can potentially be viewed by pretty much anyone with an internet connection.
What is the justification that these councils have for having all these cameras? I can understand that certain ones would be beneficial to reduce crime or monitor traffic. But a lot just seem to be there for the sake of it. With local authorities feeling the squeeze from extra costs caused by COVID19 perhaps its now time to review which necessary and remove those that cannot be justified even if its just to save on the electricity costs of having them running 24/7.
Doesn't matter where you point a camera, there's always a non-zero probability it'll reduce crime (and even greater probability it'll detect or help prosecute crime while not reducing it). Whatever their cost it's a tiny fraction of that needed to have a police office wandering around and for now creates much more believable evidence so I doubt they're going to succumb in large numbers to a cost-benefit analysis anytime soon, unfortunately.
(Unless there is some kind of significant litigation cost created, by privacy laws for example).
The horse has bolted
It's out of control. Small cameras have appeared on lamp-posts where I live, a village of 1000 people. There's no notice to say who operates them or what they're for. An FoI request to the highways authority led them to claim that they had no knowledge of them.
It's quite scary.