Following the introduction of the new Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, we now have a new code of practice and a new law to point to as end users of surveillance. But it applies only to public organisations. Is it enough?
We asked experts from the industry for their responses and received responses from a consultant, an association leader, and a manufacturing executive. If you have any questions about the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, make sure you read our FAQs.
Simon Lambert, CCTV consultant
Click here to view Figure 1.
Whether the 2013 Surveillance Camera Code of Practice is enough should first address the question: Enough to achieve what? To meet its pretty narrow aims, yes. But that is easy to achieve when the authors choose how their own cloth should be cut. The public bodies to which it applies are already largely the best behaved of all CCTV users who operate the tiny minority of cameras viewing our public spaces. So the CoP brings little room for improvement where the Data Protection Act, etc., have for many years been writ large.
The DPA actually has teeth to bite bad behaviour, unlike this new paper tiger. Wouldn’t the public money it has cost been better invested reducing cuts to, let’s say, CCTV funding?
“Cat in a wheelie bin” was viral footage for many reasons both positive and negative to CCTV and issues like surveillance by consent. Such massively widespread domestic use of cameras remains in the Wild West, because they’re not governed by Data Protection. Private organisations have needed to comply for years, however, and they own the vast majority of cameras watching you and me — the elephant in the room.
If you made a list of government initiatives that could greatly increase the reputation of CCTV to the populace, this Code of Practive could place as high as No. 3 or 4, maybe.
Simon Adcock, chairman of the BSIA CCTV section
Click here to view Figure 2.
The British Security Industry Association’s CCTV section welcomes the launch of the government’s CCTV Code of Practice, having played an active part in its early development and subsequent consultation process.
However, BSIA research has revealed that only one in 70 CCTV cameras exist under public sector ownership, meaning that the current regulation is only covering a tiny proportion of CCTV systems.
Effective CCTV systems are an invaluable source of crime detection and evidence for the police, and the majority of this vital footage is provided by privately owned cameras. As such, with privately owned cameras playing such a crucial role in our society, it is essential that these cameras are adhering to quality standards.
The BSIA believes that a further extension of the Code of Practice to cover privately owned cameras would do much to encourage the adoption of best-practice among installers while driving standards of system selection, installation, and operation.
Jamie Barnfield, senior sales manager, IDIS Europe
Click here to view Figure 3.
From a manufacturer’s perspective, we welcome any initiative to standardise implementation and promote the responsible use of CCTV. The British public have a right to privacy and freedom, but they also have a right to a freedom from crime. The vast majority of the UK population support the use of CCTV for its proven benefit in preventing and solving crime and increasing public safety, so CCTV by consent assures communities of its specified purpose.
IDIS would also welcome the code encompassing technical guidelines that offer the potential to leverage existing and future surveillance investment by improving operational effectiveness. Recent terrorist incidents highlighted the effectiveness of CCTV as an aid to investigation but also identified issues in relation to integration, the quality of images, and the difficulties associated with the retrieval of footage. Similarly, the report talks to “processing of images and information of evidential value” yet does not elaborate on how recent technology developments can improve the collaboration between public and private organisations, the police, and courts.
While high-definition and networked surveillance systems take care of the image quality and provide faster and even remote retrieval of recorded footage, this opens up the already age-old debate on interoperability and open standards.
With no penalties in place for noncompliance, it is difficult to see how the code of practice will eliminate poorly installed and low-quality kit nor how it will enforce these “clear rules, policies, and procedures” prior to use. With many installers opting out of regulated bodies such as the NSI due to cost, there is little in the way of regulation or compliance with the code or industry standard best-practice. Certainly reputable installers will already be providing expert advice covering the principles in the code, yet the commissioner does not advise what end users should be looking for when selecting their installation partner.
The code identifies little concern to manufacturers, yet it will be interesting to see what, if any, significant changes result; the code seems more likely to show its teeth in the event of a privacy complaint. Yet there is an opportunity for the industry to offer its expert knowledge, as well as new HD and IP technology as a replacement to legacy analogue CCTV in order to assist public-sector customers with compliance to the code. At the same time, it certainly requires the consideration of public bodies wanting to use surveillance outside of security and safety purposes.
You have heard their take on this issue. Now let’s hear yours. Post a message below to join the debate.
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.
For my part, I think the code is great, and even though it doesn’t apply to private business it’s a template that end users should feel that they can use.
However, I do find it alarming that the code has not real teeth. Self-regulating and with no particular cosequences for breaching it. The fear still comes from the Data Protection Act, which raises the question ‘Why did we need another code?’
That ‘cat in the wheelie bin’ incident was aweful! But it is really worrying to think that every action is being watched and recorded somewhere. I am only conforted by the knowledge that I have nothing to hide and only hope that the use of CCTV footage is primarily for the safety and security of the population and not for the purpose of figuring out human habits to better the profit margins of corporations, or similar.
Well, ironically, that’s a huge area of growth for cctv vendors as they underline (in private properties of course ie. shops) the benefits of using CCTV to increase your customer flow, POS usage, queue length, etc. but it’s still fairly limited in its use, I sense.
Yes, I’ve been reading about this on your excellent website! Like the heady days of market research by loyalty card, but this time no obvious reward for the poor customer, except that they will be coerced into spending more!
However, if CCTV could be used to figure out flow and queueing habits to help get the customer in and out of the shop quicker – that would be something!
I do like the code for the reason that a large portion of what every industry does is based on history, common practices and “that’s the way it’s done” type statements. If enough companies get on the same track then eventually the code has it’s own way of handing out consequences. If a company refuses to do business the same way the rest of the industry does then they are backing themselves into a corner.
First of all, congratulations to Rob for highlighting the new CCTV Code of Practice and for energising a focused debate around its contents. This is exactly the kind of discussion that propels the security sector forward and assists in the development of (and agreement on) Best Practice. From my own perspective, I wholeheartedly agree with the words of Simon Adcock and the stance taken of late by the British Security Industry Association in the wake of its detailed and excellent report on CCTV in the UK. In relation to surveillance, the national media has become fixated by numbers. ‘You are now being… Read more »
I have to agree with you Rob! A self regulating code of conduct, with no punishment or prosecution for breaking it, is as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot!
The idea that this new code of conduct cover only 1.4% of all camera (est.) astounds me! Where else, but in central government would this be considered worthwhile? It smacks of self congratulation by those spending other people’s money to produce such worthless documents – why bother wasting the time and effort to produce it in the first place! Perhaps to Justify their worthless seat on the gravy train?
Great point safensane. Businesses who fail to keep with best practices (in whatever they do) will get left behind. Keep to the code!
It seems to me that the Govt wanted to introduce stricter controls as trust in public surveillance was dwindling but at the same time their general policy of hands off regulation or deregulation to fund cuts meant they couldn’t introduce too many teeth. They backed themselves into a catch 22.
The code does provide a framework that could be easily adopted in the private forum, but does not provide any motivation for one to do so. CCTV cameras can be used to a great many purposes, like monitoring foot falls and market research. The majority of people see cameras and automatically assume theft prevention but that does not always have to be the case. While it is a deterant it will not prevent all theft. These systems can not only be used to prove fault but to also clear from fault. I like the example of how they can be… Read more »
Great tangible example of the business benefit of surveillance, JonathonL. Did you change the layout as well, as surely there’s a danger that whatever product is in that corner would sell badly.
I don’t know, people can’t see how their data is stored (though they do care) but they can see the number of cameras. It’s very easy to absent-mindedly, and without the stats or facts to hand, to casually say ‘there’s too many cameras watching me’. It’s a ‘fact’ in most people’s minds that we live in a state where surveillance is everywhere, and it’ll take a lot of gentle, and overt, persuasion, to convince otherwise.
interesting point Rob… in Canada we soon have similar problem… but I think we should know… in our world privacy is the things of the past…
As Rob has said, getting more value from CCTV is a significant area of growth, a security manager usually has to sell these additional value-adding tools to the business to justify expenditure on CCTV. It is commonplace to see CCTV as part of integrated systems, or increased software intellegence, enabling it to create its own alarms when it picks up something that it has been programmed to detect. The application of CCTV has evolved so much and these standards don’t seem to cover even basic installations, it will have no hope covering a sophisticated CCTV set up.
Interesting point of view, @Dawn Holmes. The code is supposed to be deliberately vague specifically in order to cover future technology advances, but you’re right that it doesn’t even recognise integration issues.
But privacy is also a human right. We can only surrender it when we give voluntary concessions. It’s no ones right to simply take it.
I’m not in the UK but here in the US we are slowly and quietly moving in the same direction. Cameras pop up seemingly overnight and in my current role I just finished rolling out a camera system that covers a large portion of our property inside and out. The cameras are being ignored for the most part which really surprises me. I expected a lot of complaining about people being watched when we were putting them up but their biggest concern was if we were listening too. I guess they are more afraid of what they are saying than… Read more »
Rob, I could not agree more… but in Canada/USA I do see big changes… lost privacy…
It is now time for private CCTV cameras to be brought into regulation, particularly as the technology becomes more affordable and more homes have their own cameras. At present they are exempt from the Data Protection Act, and the only means of challenging them is through harassment law. Naturally, the Police have been less than keen to involve themselves in the process of regulating private CCTV cameras.
Private cameras aren’t exempt from the DPA to the best of my knowledge?
Mm that is interesting, and actually the same is true here. The information commissioner seems to get involved with outlawing specific systems often when there is audio added. The need to hear what people are saying is very difficult to justify for security purposes.
Much is said about camera density and privacy concerns, especially with respect to “Big Brother” watching. Interestingly, when we’ve done system designs for casinos, arguably the places with the highest camera density, employees repeatedly tell us they like the cameras. It seems that it is a double edged sword. A camera, located and monitored appropriately, can prove guilt. But it can also prove innocense. I know a number of people whos jobs – and reputations — were saved because a camera proved that a shortfall was a mistake, not theft. Or that the claim that a valet parking attendant “groped”… Read more »