IFSEC Insider is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Rob Ratcliff was the Content and Community Manager of IFSEC Global.com. He is a self-confessed everyman in the world of security and fire, keen to learn from the global community of experts who have been a part of IFSEC for 40 years now.
The International Working Group on Video Surveillance, an alliance of people and NGOs who are concerned at the increasing use of video surveillance around the world, has launched a scathing attack on the CCTV images sharing service Facewatch.
The IWGVS says that Facewatch is a “wanted poster social network, that trivialises crime fighting and asks the user to spend no more time identifying a person accused of a crime than “liking” a news story about their favourite celebrity.”
They express fears that the Facewatch system will lead to cases of mistaken identity, defamation of character, and a threat to concepts of due process and innocence until proven guilty. The app, they say, invites users to play “spot the criminal” and makes surveillance images into little more than entertainment.
The Facewatch system has been widely praised by businesses and police forces around the world for the way in which it enables the quick processing of low-level crimes. Registered businesses are able to file an incident of criminal damage or low-level theft through the service, generating a crime reference number for insurance purposes, and submitting any CCTV images of a suspected criminal.
Among its many supporters is Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who described Facewatch as “excellent technology for fighting crime, reducing bureaucracy and saving time.”
A publicly-available app then allows people to identify images of suspected offenders that police have decided they would like to speak to and to confidentially submit any details about that individual directly to the police force.
The identification app currently only serves people who live in London, Surrey, Northants, and the West Midlands, but the Facewatch service is currently being rolled out in the US and Australia following its widespread success in the UK.
Video explaining how Facewatch works and its benefits.
The IWGVS statement was released on Saturday, June 8, to coincide with 1984 Action Day, the anniversary of the 1949 publication of Orwell’s novel widely held up as a chillingly accurate description of the future police state. The statement continued:
Facewatch forms part of a ubiquitous surveillance culture that spreads fear and distrust and is undermining an already weakened sense of community.
A healthy society requires people to work together, to stand up for their beliefs and the beliefs of others, and to interact freely without being under constant surveillance.
People must be given the freedom to understand that it is only through the interactions between human beings that society’s problems, such as crime, can be alleviated. Undermining these interactions, distancing people from communities, asking people to place blind trust in surveillance technology, wanted posters and pseudo-crime fighting Apps is rotting our communities.
The IWGVS asks that consideration be given to the wider impact of a service like Facewatch in society, rather than just whether or not it is legally compliant within data protection and other rules. It calls for Facewatch to “cease and desist.”
But where the IWGVS says that Facewatch compromises due process, another civil liberties campaign group says quite the opposite. Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, is quoted among Facewatch’s supporters as saying:
Where cameras are installed by private organisations and companies, we believe it is essential to protect privacy that the minimum amount of footage is retained. Facewatch supports this objective without compromising due process, and the police role in the scheme is both an important safeguard on incorrect identifications and an excellent way to reduce the risk of footage being lost. It also makes it much easier for repeat offenders to be identified.
Facewatch was founded in 2010 by Simon Gordon, owner of London-based Gordon’s Wine Bars, in order to try and catch and deter thieves in his bars. Since then it has received widespread acclaim and been featured in various national media outlets including the BBC’s Crimewatch program.
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
Civil Rights Campaigners Slam FacewatchThe International Working Group on Video Surveillance, an alliance of people and NGOs who are concerned at the increasing use […]
Robert Ratcliff
IFSEC Insider | Security and Fire News and Resources
Subscribe
15 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe Harris
June 10, 2013 5:53 pm
It is difficult to imagine a collective which is described as “an alliance of people and NGOs who are concerned at the increasing use of video surveillance” as being totally unbiased in their consideration of this technology. I feel that Facewatch does go to some effort to try and contain image release only to known postcodes and a set distance (I’d love to see this change to GPS / Cell triangulated positioning only however) and that in effect any episode of Crimewatch or most police forces websites generally release much more detail including the specifics of why those pictured are… Read more »
Joe, yes, their agenda is pretty clear. I thought it would be interesting to share the views of the critics, as well as the supporters. As you say, the breadth of support for Facewatch goes a long way to underline how good a system it is, particularly I think the support from Big Brother Watch, who also have a clear agenda.
@Robert Brown – It is not only fair to give other opinions a voice it is also useful as it means we can enter into a proper dialogue about any genuine concerns and opportunities. Every side of an argument can sometimes give a valid input into a debate and offer a different perspective that might just help others to see something that they would otherwise have missed. Detractors shouldn’t be scorned by default, they should be listened to and their comments assessed for any meaningful information. This is often something that those passionate about a subject can struggle with, as… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more, Joe! Facewatch has always been very careful with their handling of data and have a pretty frequent dialogue with the Information Commissioner’s Office from what I understand, as well they should. A breach of rules with data as sensitive as that which possibly implicated criminals would no doubt come with a hefty fine from the ICO.
Simon Gordon
June 12, 2013 10:10 am
Thank you for the balanced comments guys.
We work very hard to ensure that civil liberties are protected vigorously and I am very much against surveillance unless it is proportionate, prevents crime and makes us all safer.
We will never please everyone but all the people I meet are fed up with low level crime which is why Facewatch is trying to help us all to work together to reduce crime in our communities.
simon absolutely. You cannot please every one with what you are doing and spy surveillance is not pleasing at all. People feel that they are deprived of their privacy. But if something goes wrong they will blame the LEAs and police. So please let the police and LEAs do their work its for your own benefit.
Hi Sheh, I think you may have misunderstood Facewatch ID. We have simply provided the tools for police to upload images themselves of people they want to identify, this is not a watch list and it clearly states they just want to talk to the people on there. These images can also appear in newspapers, on TV and on police websites. Businesses or individuals can never put images onto it themselves. We have had this discussion with the other major civil liberty groups and when they understood it they were quite happy, even those from the USA. At no stage… Read more »
Simon, thanks for your comments, and nice to see you on the site. As I said to Joe earlier, the views of this particular group I think are interesting but significantly undercut by the fact that Facewatch has real and public support from groups as varied as the Met Police and Big Brother Watch. I think most people in the know appreciate the value of Facewatch, but the key is making sure that your PR machine is just as effective as any detractors! It’s easy to criticise, but difficult to build up trust. The partnerships and close relationship you have… Read more »
Thanks guys for your responses. Anytime you want to get in contact don’t hesitate, we are always open to suggestions, this is a community driven business and all I care about is making the place safer for us and our children without becoming Big Brother!
Thanks guys for your responses. Anytime you want to get in contact don’t hesitate, we are always open to suggestions, this is a community driven business and all I care about is making the place safer for us and our children without becoming Big Brother!
I like what Facewatch is doing here and I especially am glad that it is a system that’s being offered for free. I agree that there is no way Facewatch–or any system, for that matter–can replace or take on the role of the police. However, it is a useful tool and will help the authorities do their jobs.
@ Rob
I think Facewatch sounds like a pretty good idea. Some police departments in the US use social networking to share images from security footage to try to identify people of interest. It sounds like Facewatch would just make it a little easier, and maybe even make someone with information feel more comfortable coming forward through a medium other than Facebook.
@Stacey, I agree. I didn’t look at it that way but Facewatch could very well be the aid police and law enforcement officers are looking for to catching criminals on a social level.
@ ITs_Hazel
I can certainly see the benefits of Facewatch. Especially if it can offer the people they are asking for information the option of anonymity.
It is difficult to imagine a collective which is described as “an alliance of people and NGOs who are concerned at the increasing use of video surveillance” as being totally unbiased in their consideration of this technology. I feel that Facewatch does go to some effort to try and contain image release only to known postcodes and a set distance (I’d love to see this change to GPS / Cell triangulated positioning only however) and that in effect any episode of Crimewatch or most police forces websites generally release much more detail including the specifics of why those pictured are… Read more »
Joe, yes, their agenda is pretty clear. I thought it would be interesting to share the views of the critics, as well as the supporters. As you say, the breadth of support for Facewatch goes a long way to underline how good a system it is, particularly I think the support from Big Brother Watch, who also have a clear agenda.
@Robert Brown – It is not only fair to give other opinions a voice it is also useful as it means we can enter into a proper dialogue about any genuine concerns and opportunities. Every side of an argument can sometimes give a valid input into a debate and offer a different perspective that might just help others to see something that they would otherwise have missed. Detractors shouldn’t be scorned by default, they should be listened to and their comments assessed for any meaningful information. This is often something that those passionate about a subject can struggle with, as… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more, Joe! Facewatch has always been very careful with their handling of data and have a pretty frequent dialogue with the Information Commissioner’s Office from what I understand, as well they should. A breach of rules with data as sensitive as that which possibly implicated criminals would no doubt come with a hefty fine from the ICO.
Thank you for the balanced comments guys.
We work very hard to ensure that civil liberties are protected vigorously and I am very much against surveillance unless it is proportionate, prevents crime and makes us all safer.
We will never please everyone but all the people I meet are fed up with low level crime which is why Facewatch is trying to help us all to work together to reduce crime in our communities.
simon absolutely. You cannot please every one with what you are doing and spy surveillance is not pleasing at all. People feel that they are deprived of their privacy. But if something goes wrong they will blame the LEAs and police. So please let the police and LEAs do their work its for your own benefit.
Hi Sheh, I think you may have misunderstood Facewatch ID. We have simply provided the tools for police to upload images themselves of people they want to identify, this is not a watch list and it clearly states they just want to talk to the people on there. These images can also appear in newspapers, on TV and on police websites. Businesses or individuals can never put images onto it themselves. We have had this discussion with the other major civil liberty groups and when they understood it they were quite happy, even those from the USA. At no stage… Read more »
Sorry simon I really misunderstood it and thanks for elaborating your point and clearing it further. I agree with your point.
Simon, thanks for your comments, and nice to see you on the site. As I said to Joe earlier, the views of this particular group I think are interesting but significantly undercut by the fact that Facewatch has real and public support from groups as varied as the Met Police and Big Brother Watch. I think most people in the know appreciate the value of Facewatch, but the key is making sure that your PR machine is just as effective as any detractors! It’s easy to criticise, but difficult to build up trust. The partnerships and close relationship you have… Read more »
Thanks guys for your responses. Anytime you want to get in contact don’t hesitate, we are always open to suggestions, this is a community driven business and all I care about is making the place safer for us and our children without becoming Big Brother!
Thanks guys for your responses. Anytime you want to get in contact don’t hesitate, we are always open to suggestions, this is a community driven business and all I care about is making the place safer for us and our children without becoming Big Brother!
I like what Facewatch is doing here and I especially am glad that it is a system that’s being offered for free. I agree that there is no way Facewatch–or any system, for that matter–can replace or take on the role of the police. However, it is a useful tool and will help the authorities do their jobs.
@ Rob
I think Facewatch sounds like a pretty good idea. Some police departments in the US use social networking to share images from security footage to try to identify people of interest. It sounds like Facewatch would just make it a little easier, and maybe even make someone with information feel more comfortable coming forward through a medium other than Facebook.
@Stacey, I agree. I didn’t look at it that way but Facewatch could very well be the aid police and law enforcement officers are looking for to catching criminals on a social level.
@ ITs_Hazel
I can certainly see the benefits of Facewatch. Especially if it can offer the people they are asking for information the option of anonymity.