Public CCTV in the UK - Beyond 1984

The UK seems set to have remote monitoring, recognition sytems linking high quality cameras, which can see in the dark, and detect movements and automatically track people as they go about their normal business, and then pass onrecords of their movements to central state databases, in the UK and abroad. George Orwell could hardly imagine the sophistication of the technology now available. The communist slavemasters of the former Soviet empire would have loved to have this technology available to them, but is it appropriate for our supposedly free society in the UK ?

There is uncritical acclaim of Public CCTV schemes in the media, especially TV crime watch type programmes, which eagerly broadcast footage from private and public CCTV systems, with all the glee of voyeuristic papparazzi. Footage from Police traffic cameras even sells commercially in the home Video tape market.

There is potentially a benefit to society from a well run, properly funded, technologically up to date CCTV scheme, which has the support of the local community. However, most schemes seem to have been set up with the intention of saving money on manpower costs.

Those schemes which cover public places infringe on such rights to privacy. It is no longer a simple case of grainy black and white CCTV images such as you see in a corner shop or old style bank security cameras . The new technology is potentially far more powerful and open to abuse.

Whilst many schemes are set up with good intentions, there is no statutory requirement or indepenent licensing scheme to monitor and regulate them, and to ensure that they continue to be run responsibly and efficiently in the future as both new technology is introduced, and as financial pressures to reduce manpower costs increases.

City of London & Channel Ports

Car Number Plate Recognition - lookups in less than 4 seconds - what happens to the "false alarm tests"

Presumably, there have been experiments with semi/fully automatic Car Number Plate recognition , e.g. off-line from video tape , not necessarily live. Who regulates such "trawling" where by definition most of the vehicles checked are "innocent"

Mandrake and other neural network facial recognition software

1800 cameras controlled from Victoria British Transport Police HQ

£200 million smart card ticketing system for London transport announced

Who are the British Transport Police accountable to anyway ? Where is the equivalent of the Local Authority Police liason committee ?

Internet Webcams

Why is there no regulation ?

No statutory licensing scheme for Public facing linked CCTV systems

CCTV scheme rules & regulations

There see to be no rules in this area ! How does the public know that a particular CCTV scheme is being run to the highest standards of efficiency and ethics ? Who knows if any particular scheme is cost effective and actually reduces crime, rather than displaces it ?

There are a few , uncoordinated voluntary Codes of Practice used by Police Forces. They have no legal sanctions, and do not offer Operators any limited immunity from prosecution for negligence, etc.

How do even these Codes of Conduct apply to private security firms subcontracted by Local Authorities etc. to run their CCTV schemes ? Should they be forced to abide by the Codes of Conduct or other rules as part of their contracts ?

There also need to be similar rules in place for the use of CCTV on private property where the public is welcomed in to buy goods and services or entertainment.

Who owns the copyright of Public CCTV images ?

Are "they" allowed to sell your image to TV stations, release them on video ? Even if they show members of the public taking accidental pratfalls a la Jeremy Beadle ?

Shouldn't these images be covered by the principles of the Data Protection Act ? i.e. data gathered for one purpose should not be used without consent for another ?

What about the nuLabour promises of Privacy and Freedom of Information ?

How is it possible for a camera on say a Railway station to cover the approach road which is the public highway ?

Why are the Planning laws more concerned with the visual impact of public CCTV cameras than their nuisance and intrusion of privacy aspects ?

What safeguards are there about the ratio of live operators to cameras ? Too many cameras/operator means that the alleged quick response to crime or emergencies is a fiction

What safeguards to privacy are there in the siting of public CCTV cameras ? If you can see, zoom and record, in infrared/at night/low visibility not just the street, but into peoples homes and offices ? N.B. today's new camera images are of a much higher standard than before.

Where are the minimum standards for the training of camera operators ?

The Security Industry has, in too many cases, employed unskilled, bored, perverts and criminals @£4 - £5 per hour

Dr Clive Norris of the University of Hull published some academic work last year which shows both racist and sexist behaviour by private camera operators, as well as inattention and falling asleep on what can be a boring job.

Camera Operating companies or authorities should be made liable for the sexual harassment/voyeurism of camera operators - it is not credible that the typical "security guard" will not be tempted to video / zoom in on attractive females.

If these people ever have access to say the proposed smart card ticketing system, they will also be able to get the address/phone number of pretty female season ticket holders

The dangers from stalkers, perverts, burglars muggers and rapists are obvious (we know your name, and where you live, and know you are not at home right now)

The new standard cameras are quite capable of detecting Rolex watches and obviously expensive looking cars

One of the recent law enforcement successes was the use of CCTV to track IRA terrorist suspects to/from Tooting Tube Station (providing that this story is not exaggeration or disinformation to help cover informant sources within the IRA)

What has happened to the faces of all the thousands of innocent travelers who were no doubt videoed and possibly run through face recognition systems ? Is it still on file ? Will it remain on file and get transferred into some HOLMES type statistical weighting system to plague innocent people with "suspicion of terrorist association" points ?

Given the widespread use of data visualisation software such as Analysts's Notebook by i2d, which is used specifically to target potential football hooligans, what safeguards are there that UK CCTV images / facial recognition databases will not be passed on to foreign governments e.g. France in the run up to the World Cup ?

What is the legal requirement of , say London Underground or a supermarket to submit video evidence when called to do so in a civil case e.g. where a traveler is suing the company for negligence after an accident ? Can the company prevaricate and claim that it cannot release such material to the plaintiff for "privacy" or "security" reasons ?

What steps are taken to ensure that any CCTV recordings are properly timestamped and are true copies which have not been edited or digitally faked - e.g. Tom Hanks in the film Forrest Gump apparently meeting the late President Kennedy is a Hollywood special effect that can be done on a high end personal computer nowadays

Proposals:

Statutory licensing scheme for Public CCTV operators

Directors / officials in charge of such schemes to be liable for as accomplices in any crime perpetrated with the aid of such systems e.g. stalking of females, of robbery victims - the public needs absolute trust in such systems and their operators

Criminal penalties for selling/publishing such pictures to TV companies, Video distributors or onto the Internet

Unlimited fines

Copyright law

Privacy of the Public CCTV networks - most systems seem to offer only security through obscurity. In most cases, there is no encryption of the video data as it passes over the network cabling. What is there to stop criminals or unauthorised tapping of such datastreams using relatively cheap, unsophisticated equipment ? What provisions if any are taken against van Eck monitoring of the cameras, cables and central monitoring equipment ?

A cable can easily be tapped with a video sender transmitter bug

Many city centre schemes even use microwave connected cameras, which apart from being even more easily tapped if not sited properly, also add to the general electromagnetic pollution.

This leaves them potentially vulnerable to being monitored to help aid diversions or jammed, during the planting of terrorist bombs/hoaxes, presumably one of their prime reasons for being introduced in the first place.

Public CCTV operators should not be allowed to substitute adequate human resources for technological ones. Even proponents of CCTV have noticed this tendency for under staffing.

Video camera evidence alone should not be used to pressure suspects into confessing to street crimes such as "conspiracy to steal" or " acting suspiciously" where no actual attempt at a crime has occurred, like seems to already have happened according the TV programme with John Stalker showing a couple of youths in Birmingham New Street shopping mall, who got no nearer than a couple of metres from an old lady with a vulnerable purse on her shopping bag.

Licensing schemes should also provide the foundation for any possible use of advanced

Electromagnetic imaging technologies such as millimeter wave radar currently being trialled/proposed as a surveillance method in airports that can "see" through outer clothing or into bags and luggage etc.

Why is the public not consulted in the siting of such cameras - we are not talking about the use of hidden "pinhole" cameras, but of the publicly visible ones ? The siting on say London Underground tube stations leaves a lot to be desired - how many beggars and buskers seem to sit directly underneath such cameras out of view of the operators, who do not seem to respond rapidly to their presence ?

There seem to be hundreds of companies willing to sell and install all manner of video surveillance equipment.

Industry codes of practice ?

Does the Police National Computer and/or Driver Vehicle Licensing databases get replicated to local systems for Number Plate Recognition, perhaps in CD-ROM format to save bandwidth to the central mainframes (which could still be used for the very latest updates ?)

The digital "identikit" software / databases used to help create "wanted posters" suffers from a lack of choices for black males, as they are understandably reluctant to be photographed by the police. What safeguards, if any, are there that say British Transport Police will not use their new high resolution cameras to sneakily update their own version of this database from publicly shot video ? What if they use the actual locations where this footage was shot as an extra factor in the weighting process e.g. a mugging takes place in Brixton , e.g. search all black males in the system who have ever been filmed by the CCTV using Brixton station ?

What is to prevent such technology being linked to the crude neural networks used by say Mandrake to log the movements of literally "known faces" ? Such techniques may or may not be OK at the countries borders, but who sanctioned them, or is not actively forbidding their use internally ?

Are the new cameras sensitive enough to pick up PIN numbers being entered into Bank / Building Society ATM machines ?

Possible action:

Legal:

Insist that Public CCTV control rooms are themselves under 24 hour a day, with all voice, phone and radio conversations. There should also be "black box" recorders of data transmissions, like in City dealing rooms. N.B. such monitoring systems will substantially increase the cost of Public CCTV schemes.

Write to London transport, Railways companies, i.e. the operators of the stations and the British Transport Police asking for all data held about you under the Data Protection Act 1984

Get them to prove that they have destroyed your CCTV images that have been "trawled" as part of a criminal or safety monitoring incident.

Wear a copyright T-shirt and/or perform an acknowledged work of art/music /mime then get an Anton Pillar order to raid the CCTV operators premises with bailiffs to seize all evidence of copyright infringement i.e. tapes, computers, copying equipment, all the backup tapes

Set up an Internet Web site with stills or even updated Webcamera images of the offices, cars and homes of the camera operators, and directors of the schemes/those in charge

"Watching them, watching us !"

Claim that according to your shamanistic/voodoo religious beliefs, CCTV without your consent is equivalent to magical "soul stealing"

Erect a voodoo shrine / pin cushion using images from above

  For the more desperate:

"Crying Wolf" discrediting of response times

Laser pointers

Spray paint

Paintball guns

Trained Pigeons !

Microwave jammers

van Eck monitoring

EMP/HERF attacks