Of late, the use and management of CCTV images has once again been at the forefront of media coverage.
In one particular situation, images of people in police custody being interviewed under caution (in what most of us would agree to be a highly personal situation) were made available and published for public consumption in a television documentary, followed by full public exposure in all means of media.
Then there were the front page headlines talking about a video tape having been found in a bus station. The tape in question contained highly sensitive personal information, this time regarding allegations of abuse in relation to young persons in our society.
On this occasion, the interview was carried out by a different police force.
In both cases, the police are responsible for the management of the CCTV images (which most certainly includes the security of these images, and the personal data of the individuals involved).
Here, the police are what’s termed ‘the data controller’. In other words, they’re responsible for all data – including images.
Totally wide of the mark
In the first scenario, there has also been much questioning along the lines of: ‘Who leaked what’?
From a data protection point of view, this is totally wide of the mark. The police force is registered as the data controller and, therefore, assumes responsibility for all aspects of gathering and managing that data.
They will have – under data protection requirements – written documentation on who these images were passed on to, and the reasons for doing so. This documentation should also include the requirements of the Data Protection Act for those receiving this personal data (ie the images themselves).
The second case is of a similar circumstance. There’s a requirement for the data controller of that police force to ensure that the law is followed regarding personal information: be it computer files, paper files or recorded images.
The images should have been produced and retained in a secure manner. Clearly, this wasn’t the case.
It’s open to anyone featured on that tape to take appropriate action against the data controller… and that’s when the floodgates begin to open.
Total disregard for the law
What both of these cases – and there are many, many more – actively highlight is the apparent total disregard for the law regarding peoples’ images.
Unfortunately, the organisations involved are no different to most in the UK when it comes to gathering and dealing with CCTV images, both public and private.
It’s time for some action. For far too long now the law regarding surveillance images and how they should be handled has been ignored.
As many of you regular readers of SMT Online and I4S will recall, a previous Information Commissioner suggested that the UK is “sleepwalking into a Surveillance Society”.
What was subsequently done to slow this process down, or indeed stop it – or to at least to make it all legal?
Let’s be clear about this. The UK has marched full-speed ahead into this ‘Surveillance Society’ of ours. We are covered by all sorts of surveillance in our everyday lives, including CCTV.
The primary question to be asked is this: “Is the CCTV legal?”
CameraWatch fully supports CCTV, but only if it’s used in compliance with the law. The law also requires end users of CCTV systems to regularly question if their CCTV is (still) required. If there’s full justification for CCTV’s use, then the end user must review exactly what it is being used for.
CCTV must also be assessed at least once every year to ensure that it complies with the Data Protection Act legislation.
Were all CCTV usage to follow this path, we wouldn’t have the accusations of excessive use, spying, misuse and abuse and all the other areas of concern and opposition to surveillance that have cropped up.
Lip service paid to the legal requirements behind CCTV
The police are here to uphold the law but, as we have seen in many cases, the law upholders appear to be the ones who are actually breaking the law.
CameraWatch totally abhors the lip service paid to the legal requirements of CCTV. Whether it’s the police, our national Government, public space CCTV operations, major international organisations, shopping malls, airports – frankly the list goes on and on – there appears to be a sustained and widespread breach of the law.
In short, the CCTV industry has totally ignored the legal issues involved with managing a surveillance system.
Given the continual spread of CCTV across the UK, it’s disgraceful how it has been both misused and abused – from the top-level down.
CameraWatch was set up five years ago to make a difference, and to help reduce – and then remove – the suspicion surrounding CCTV. Every day, we witness examples of incompetence and blatant law-breaking regarding CCTV images.
No longer can we ignore the systematic erosion of the rights of individual citizens in this country.
For whatever reason, the Information Commissioner has failed to stem this major intrusion, and this has resulted in organisations ignoring the legislation or riding roughshod over the issues.
The public have most definitely been failed by the powers that be: this needs to stop, and stop NOW.
Courts awash with quashed cases
With more than 90% – yes, that’s 90% – of CCTV systems observed in the UK by CameraWatch deemed to be unlawful, why are we accepting that each and every day illegal CCTV systems are being used to identify illegal acts?
The courts will soon be awash with cases thrown out due to the legality of the CCTV evidence being questioned. Indeed, this is already happening.
In fact, CCTV evidence is continually being questioned even before it’s placed in front of the courts. Lawyers are now starting to take the attitude of: “If it’s CCTV evidence, challenge it.”
For their part, insurers are reviewing their insurance coverage where CCTV is used and, if the CCTV isn’t compliant with the law, then that could be a breach of the terms of insurance coverage.
Taxpayer’s money is being used to support police officers who spend hundreds of wasted hours searching through grainy, dark, unrecognisable CCTV images. Images from a CCTV system that is neither fit for purpose nor compliant with the law. They do so time after time after time.
We’re now seeing a huge amount of public space CCTV systems threatened with closure, reduced monitoring or less support and maintenance. Make no mistake that this will have a major impact on the expectations of the public and the potential for crime detection.
Less frequent maintenance results in systems no longer being fit for purpose.
On top of all that, how many users carry out annual assessments to ensure that their surveillance systems fully comply with the law?
Legality first, operational issues later
All the discussions on financial support centre on the operational issues: we need to make sure that, to begin with, CCTV installations are legal.
Even before the coalition Government’s much-discussed financial cutbacks, CameraWatch identified public space CCTV systems and systems in universities which were less than 50% compliant with the law. It’s a disgraceful situation that such major organisations can flout the law in this way.
At CameraWatch, we have built our reputation on excellence. Our CEO, Gordon Ferrie, has stated: “The CameraWatch membership is now calling on the Board for action. Our team is receiving calls on a daily basis regarding ineffective and illegal CCTV systems. These complaints stretch from schools to the NHS, from local authorities who operate public service systems through to private operators such as banks, shops, airports and stations.”
He continued: “The industry and its users have ignored their obligations to data protection and ensuring that the systems really are fit-for-purpose. CameraWatch intends passing on all future complaints direct to the appropriate authorities. The UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Information Commissioner are being ignored.”
In conclusion, the CameraWatch CEO explained: “What is needed is a clear and concise message that all CCTV system operators will be prosecuted should they fail to observe even the simple basics of the law. The holding of a licence to operate CCTV used to mean something, and yet we’re in the position that the great majority of CCTV in this country is breaking the law.”
What we need is good quality CCTV images and properly managed systems. Above all, we need all CCTV to be legal and fit for purpose.
Only then can we have full public confidence in what is undoubtedly one of our most valuable crime detection and safety tools.
Paul Mackie is the compliance director at CameraWatch and a recognised expert in the field of Data Protection Act compliance for CCTV systems
Mackie boasts a 30-plus year background in IT working with both international blue chip companies and also national Government, during which time he dealt with compliance and legalisation of industry software
Further information on CameraWatch
CameraWatch is a group aimed at promoting awareness and compliance of the Data Protection Act for camera surveillance in both the private and public sectors. The organisation has the support of the industry regulator, namely the Information Commissioner’s Office.
With reported figures suggesting over 15 million CCTV cameras operational in the UK, a need has been identified for a central information point for the industry. CameraWatch is an independent, not-for-profit, self-funding advisory body* that supports the understanding of CCTV and compliance with current policy and legislation, removing risks relating to data protection and other legal non-compliance.
CameraWatch represents the interests of members through liaison with legislative, prosecution and Government organisations throughout the UK and the EU.
In consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the organisation facilitates the implementation of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and builds up and disseminates Best Practice guidelines designed to support compliance in the use of CCTV systems, their operation and procedures and (where appropriate) prosecutions using CCTV evidence.
CameraWatch offers support tailored to meet the needs of specific organisations, as well as the general public. To these ends, the organisation undertakes R&D project work and market research.
Promotion of data-sharing forums
CameraWatch also promotes regular meetings/seminars and data-sharing forums with the police and law enforcement agencies, the ICO and other security working groups, suppliers/manufacturers and installers and CCTV applications users from all affected sectors (such as retail, transport, finance, insurance, property management and construction, the licensed trade, industry consultants, the security industry, the legal profession, local authorities and other related bodies).
CameraWatch’s activities are currently funded by industry sponsorship and membership fees. The organisation will celebrate it’s Fifth Anniversary in March this year.
CameraWatch’s CEO Gordon Ferrie is a recognised expert in banking security. He was the director of the Fraud Squad and deputy head of CID operations at Strathclyde Police, and is a former worldwide head of security for the Royal Bank of Scotland Group.
Currently a director of ComSec, Ferrie is the CEO of CameraWatch in a volunteer capacity.
Along with Ferrie and Paul Mackie, five other directors make up the Board of CameraWatch.
*CameraWatch is a company limited by guarantee and recognised by HMRC as a not-for-profit organisation
Access more detail on the CameraWatch website (a dedicated link is provided on the right hand panel of this page)
