1987 wasn’t a great year, to be frank, what with the Stock Market crash, and the King’s Cross London Underground fire. But on a positive note — The Simpsons made its TV debut.
In terms of what transpired in our security world, 1987 was pretty monumental. Why? We witnessed — no pun intended — the very first UK town centre CCTV system installed across King’s Lynn with a view towards protecting its 40-odd thousand citizens.
Proportionate surveillance
Since then, of course, CCTV’s presence in the public domain has burgeoned both in terms of the number of cameras involved and the quality of the technology that lies within them. Positively, specific systems operators are now licensed and regulated by the Government.
These regulated operators in unison with top quality cameras have given rise to myriad success stories of more and more criminals being brought to justice by way of all-seeing “eyes in the sky”.
Key to the ongoing success of CCTV has been, is, and always will be buy-in from the public — the people being watched.
As citizens, we all need to know that surveillance is both appropriate and proportionate in its deployment.
It must also be the case that camera system operators, and those who use the information duly captured, demonstrate integrity in doing so at all times
CCTV Code of Practice
All of which is why the current UK coalition Government is committed to the further regulation of CCTV by way of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and is presently seeking views on a draft Code of Practice focused on surveillance.
That Code is built squarely upon 12 guiding principles.
Interestingly, and for the first time, the notion of “surveillance by consent” is brought into play. There’s an obvious parallel here, then, with the ethics behind “policing by consent”.
The consultation period — which closes on 21 March — takes place while surveillance commissioner Andrew Rennison’s comment that HD CCTV could breach human rights remains fresh in the memory.
The commissioner has stated that the proliferation of HD surveillance systems — and facial recognition technologies — in public spaces could result in a backlash from citizens.
“The technology has overtaken our ability to regulate it,” said Rennison in The Independent. HD cameras are “popping up all over the place”, asserted the commissioner, with the exponential growth of high power megapixel cameras potentially becoming an issue around Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (relating to the protection of family and private life).
Proliferation of CCTV
Of course, discussions around “The Surveillance State” have surfaced time and again. They’re not likely to disappear. Indeed, across the years I’ve chaired numerous industry debates on this topic — all of them impassioned affairs.
At one of those debates I suggested that the proliferation of CCTV cameras in public spaces isn’t an issue if, like myself, you happen to be a law-abiding citizen and are behaving appropriately.
Some would assert that such a suggestion is perhaps a touch naive.
In all honesty, I would argue that neither the number of cameras monitoring us nor the inevitable advance of technology is the crux of the matter.
Rather, it’s what subsequently happens to the images, data, information — call it what you will — gathered as a result of that process that really matters.
The Protection of Freedoms Act is to be welcomed, as is the draft Code of Practice on surveillance.
Certainly, the balancing act that has to be struck for CCTV — between the need to enhance public space safety, and at the same time, safeguard privacies — is far from an easy task, but those two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
Let’s never forget the vital information gathered by CCTV during 7/7 and the London riots of August 2011.
Properly regulated, deployed, and used CCTV is one of the very best crime-fighting tools at our disposal.
a euro ” Brian Sims is producing the seminar content for the CCTV & Video Surveillance product area at IFSEC International, sponsored by IDIS. To register for the show please visit www.ifsec.co.uk.
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.
Brian, Agree with you that what is perhaps most important is what happens to the data once it’s captured, but I’m not sure that we can really say ‘If you’re law-abiding, what’s the problem?’ The justification for surveillance should be far more rigid, otherwise you’ll have people asking probing questions — just as Andrew Rennison has, and unless the push back is sound, you lose the debate.
In my experience a lot of town cctv system pictures ‘aren’t that great’ when trying to gather evidence on suspects during an investigation.
The public perception is we have too many cameras. However, a lot of cameras do not meet the requirement of investigators.
I would push for town cctv systems to be upgraded to HD quality as a matter of priority.
Too many times I haven’t been able to read a number plate or get a good enough screenshot of a suspect from recorded footage.
Investigators need better pictures.
—
Andrew Wallace @Andrew Wallace on Twitter.
Infact too many cameras is not the most desirable solution in given situation. Their placement, monitoring authority and response actions much more important than just merely getting the image in installed cameras. I totally agree that high resolution cameras are much more beneficial for post crime investigation and recognition of certain individual. But its also dependent upon other variables like data storage capapbiliy, correct zoom angles, IR / motion sensors etc. I think its a misconception that if we installed great number of cameras …we would be able to get better forensic evidences.
Having CCTV is not a bad idea at all but we have seen some government departments like DVLA installing CCTV to make money from motorist and it does override the purpose of having CCTV for security and protection of law abiding citizens.
Where does one draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable in a civilised society where we have department not adhering to CCTV regulations.
What is acceptable is also open for debate
The number of cameras we do or don’t have doesn’t matter to me as an investigator and I’m not entering into that debate.
However, the cameras we do already have don’t meet the standard.
—
Andrew Wallace @Andrew Wallace on Twitter.
Exactly, agree with you totally, how do we measure standards and have acceptable standards for CCTV cameras producers. I think you and I may know something to contribute in formulating and implementing good and acceptable working practices.
I think it is safe to say that the presence of CCTVs has managed to bring about a number of effects, some of which are positive (reduced crime) and some of which are negative (privacy issues.)
To address the negative ones, some sort of policy must be formulated and implemented with regards to the proliferation and installation of CCTVs.
Sheh, I agree, too many cameras seems nonsensical. It’s a waste, really, going beyond the optimum number of CCTVs recommended for a certain area. Sometimes people perceive and believe that the more there is of one thing, the better. But it merely proves an old adage correct: Too much of a good thing most often turns out bad.
Investment levels are pretty minimal at this time for councils generally. Although, I read recently that Newham Council are investing in more cameras, so it’s not a completely flat trend by any means.
Oh I like that, ITs_Hazel. Yes, too much surveillance certainly doesn’t mean ‘enough’. Quality not quantity is another adage for you!
I’ve got a strange feeling that following major themes of HD surveillance in previous IFSEC’s we might be seeing the advent of a great debate over image clarity
I was told a story once by a business development manager for a surveillance company, who was based in Scandinavia somewhere (I think it was Norway). He told me about how a large number of surveillance camera owners had captured an explosion on their cameras outside their shops. They sent the images to the authorities for analysis which helped in the investigation but some time later many were issued fines for having cameras recording public areas without a licence. The cameras would have been fine if they could only see in the shop but by seeing something outside they broke… Read more »
There is a CCTV Code of Practice available from the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) which is very useful. I use it as a reference point.
This and the Data Protection Act also gives advice on signage and regulations concerning recording images of members of the public.
It’s only guidance of course, but yes, useful stuff. It’s here for anyone looking: http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/ICO_CCTVFINAL_2301.pdf
ONVIF and PSIA standards are certainly helping in interoperability, but not necessarily with image clarity and resolution.
I’m glad to hear you have set of standards – CCTV Code of Practice to use as reference point… in Canada it free for all… and a lot of the times criminals get away on technicality…
@ Andrew
I agree with you, quality should come above quantity. I have seen so many pictures on the news from CCTV systems that are grainy or pixelated and you can’t make sense out of the image. I think before an organization invests in more CCTV, they should invest in upgrading the quality of CCTV.