CCTV is coming in for stick. David Davis mentioned it in his resignation speech alongside DNA databases and 42-day detention for terrorist suspects. What gives?! Why is a crime prevention (or detection) tool so controversial and mistrusted?
Poor old CCTV even gets the blame for being used by the media to give influence the public into thinking that crime is ‘more widespread and frequent’ than it really is. In her June report ‘Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime’ for the Cabinet Office, Louise Casey wrote: "A further dimension of media coverage is that it has (perhaps inevitably) become more visually graphic in nature facilitated by an increase in CCTV footage, mobile video technology, and an enthusiasm for reality television programmes. "
Martin Lazell, secretary of the Public CCTV Managers Association (PCMA, www.pcma.org.uk) comments: "If anything needs knocking it’s the ignorance about CCTV, but from the position of the general public I can well see that some of them could be asking "what is it all doing?". <br><br>"Clearly the view of some, that all problems need CCTV, is likely to generate an excess of cameras in all the wrong places. The increasing use of CCTV for traffic enforcement is also an issue which is unlikely to be popular, yet properly managed as part of integrated CCTV strategy (that’s with a small s rather then Home Office National Strategy) could lead to a more reasonable balance in terms of overall benefit to the public when crime etc is taken into account as well. LAs [local authorities] do after all have obligations under the Crime and Disorder Act [1998] to take crime into account in carrying out their functions. They also have obligation now to minimise traffic congestion and CCTV is an excellent tool for this. <br><br>"Given that the daily media (not Professional Security Magazine) seeks to delight in knocking everything, sometimes with justification, but rarely prints anything positive, it’s likely that we simply do not do enough to promote the positives. Yet the very issue which I started this with – ignorance – is exactly one of the reasons why we have so much of it. Everyone thinks it’s going to solve their problems." <br><br>-=-=-=<br><br>Not the least odd thing about the possible backlash against CCTV is that CCTV is used so widely in public and semi-public places by commerce and government and use is only growing. <br><br>There are, according to Transport for London, about 8,500 CCTV cameras on the Tube in London which will rise to 12,000 over the next four years as part of station modernisation. (This compares with about 700 British Transport Police officers for London Underground, itself a big rise in recent years, add TfL.)<br><br>This will see the upgrading and expansion of CCTV facilities from analogue to digital and the recording of high quality images to hard drive rather than magnetic tape. This will ultimately mean that no one will be able to enter the Underground network without their face being recorded by CCTV camera. CCTV coverage also extends to trains and will be expanded as new rolling stock arrives on the network. Footage from CCTV cameras is not only able to viewed and monitored locally by a specific station but can also be accessed remotely by the Network Operation Centre at London Underground HQ and by the BTP. <br><br>Information Points are being installed at every station as it undergoes refurbishment with as many as 26 installed at some of the busiest stations. These information points give passengers and staff access to the station supervisor’s office at the touch of a button. If there is no member of staff in the station control room, for any reason, the Information Point will automatically connect to the 999 emergency services help line<br>Additional improvements to Tube security in recent decades have seen the introduction of clear lines of sight and improved lighting on platforms as stations are upgraded and refurbished.<br><br>In local government<br><br>A Bristol man who let his dog foul in a public place and then failed to clear it up has today been fined £160 and ordered to pay costs of £883 to the city council. The Easton man was charged with one offence of dog fouling under the Fouling of Land by Dog (Bristol City Council) Order 2007 and Section 55 of the Clean Neighbourhood & Environment Act 2005. He failed to appear at court for his trial in June and the case was heard in his absence. He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of £160, double the Fixed Penalty Notice he would have paid if he had cooperated with the council after the incident took place. He was also ordered to pay the full costs to the council.<br><br>On December 7, 2007, the council’s dog warden team saw CCTV evidence of the man exercising his dog in the grounds of a flat. The dog fouled on the grassy communal area and the man made no attempt to clear it up.<br><br>A dog warden visited the man a week later on December 14th to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice of £80. The man refused to accept the Notice and the team took the decision to prosecute.<br><br>A collection order was made by the magistrat for the man to pay within 21 days.<br><br>Councillor Judith Price, Cabinet Member for Homes & Streetscene, said: “We want to create better neighbourhoods for everyone. Owners have a legal as well as moral responsibility to clean up after their dogs anywhere in the city – particularly in a communal area like this, there is no excuse for letting your dog foul.<br><br>CCTV is also used to counter commercial waste fly-tipping. For example, Bristol City Council’s Environmental Services Manager Aled Williams said: "Bristol City Council always takes legal action against identified fly-tippers, because the waste they leave creates eyesores for the city, clear-up expense for the local taxpayer, and can be a health and safety hazard. <br><br>“Fly-tipped waste usually contains some clues to its origin, and we can often find eye-witness, CCTV or photographic evidence. The removal and recycling of waste is an expense which all businesses must allow for, and we would rather business owners got in touch with us if they are facing problems than trying to dump it illegally."<br><br>CCTV is being used for purposes maybe not publicised – or, to be fair, maybe not technologically thought of – when public space cameras came in in a big way in the 1990s. Mobile or re-deployable cameras are used to tackle anti-social behaviour, maybe outside of business and city centres where fixed cameras are, such as in villages, or suburban shopping streets. Or; CCTV for traffic monitoring and bus and other lane enforcement, for instance. In Bristol the city council for instance proposes to add 80 CCTV traffic cameras.<br><br>In a recent Home Office guide to tackling violent street gangs, Automaticnumber plate recognition (ANPR) technology is among methods outlined. Police using CCTV in this way ‘both from fixed sites and mobile terminals’ can then target vehicles known to be used by gangs, and even carry out ‘armed checkpoints’, according to the document. <br><br><br>Mistrust of CCTV can be bound up with wider distrust of the authorities and what is called, in shorthand, a ‘surveillance society’. Commenting on a June report from the Home Affairs Select Committee, featured in the July print issue of Professional Security, which makes recommendation regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, said: "Councils use these powers to respond to residents’ complaints about rip-off merchants, fly tippers and benefit fraudsters who cheat the taxpayer and prey on the vulnerable and the elderly. This is entirely what the Act is intended for. Without these powers councils would not be able to provide the same level of reassurance and protection local people demand and deserve.<br><br>"I understand some people have concerns over the use of surveillance. We are working with the Government, police chiefs and the surveillance commissioners to clarify some of the details of the legislation and make sure it is clear when and how surveillance should be used.<br><br>"At the same time the Government must do more to raise public awareness of this issue and to clarify its own legislation. It is not right that councils are being tarred with accusations of using ‘anti-terror’ powers to investigate local crime when they are nothing of the sort."<br><br>Sir Simon added: "There needs to be a national debate about how we can get the balance right between responding to the needs of local people who are worried about crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour and the need to make sure people’s privacy is protected."
