Panel Discussion: CCTV Regulation in the UK

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.