All Britain's city centres, main streets and public spaces are now full of CCTV cameras, which we are told are to cut crime, but increasing evidence shows that they are ineffective in halting crime and even when they do pick up criminal activity the police 'see no ships' unless it is at best, convenient. All this spying has only one practical use, which is as a tool of an authoritarian, perhaps totalitarian, state.
In London you can now be harassed, assaulted or arrested by the police just for taking photos in the street. A trio of brave but determinedly peaceful activist-pranksters tried going a little further, by turning their own cameras on the watchers. Guess what...
Showing posts with label CCTV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCTV. Show all posts
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Friday, 2 October 2009
CCTV does not work: new evidence
A local story that illustrates that CCTV is not a silver bullet that fixes everything. Some of the comments are interesting too.
CCTV not enough to protect Bristol family - Thisisbristol 1/10/09 http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/CCTV-protect-Bristol-family/article-1383410-detail/article.html
"A Bristol mother of two thought she had finally stopped the man she believes is terrorising her family, when he was caught on CCTV Bristol vandalising her husband's car.So she was stunned when the police told her that despite paying hundreds of pounds for the security system, there wasn't have enough evidence to charge him."
In this case, police claimed that CCTV evidence was not enough and that old-fashioned witnesses were required. Of course if it is in the interests of the police and/or their paymasters (government/local councils or 'businessmen') then CCTV recordings will miraculously be awarded credibility otherwise denied them.
Some officers, if it suits, will even go so far as to say that if there was only human witness and no CCTV, then all bets are off.
On the other hand, as I happily told a police acquaintance, I once witnessed one near miraculous example of the technology and The Force together doing a good job; I had joined the long-established Bristol anti-war vigil (above) for five minutes one afternoon when a couple of really determined troublemakers jumped up on the kerb, and I could tell they hadn't just come to talk about the weather. But they were followed, practically instantaneously, by two coppers who quietly saw them off. Our uniformed saviours popped up from nowhere and vanished again just as smoothly.
I have to qualify this, though: on 22nd April 2011 the Vigil again came under attack while I attended; this time a sustained visit, leaving your correspondent reclining in the bushes and his Gaza placard ripped up, but this time the cavalry did not speed to the rescue. All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men missed out because one monitor watcher was off having a cup of tea. ( The police have since told me that the cameras were doing their job but pointing somewhere else). So the jury remains out on this one.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Surveillance: Guidelines are not enough
Lib Dems demand curbs on 'spying'
Councils have been criticised for using CCTV/phone tapping powers to tackle dog mess.
The Lib Dems want tighter controls on surveillance powers for authorities including councils and the police, adding that only a magistrate should be able to approve a request for surveillance, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).
More than 500,000 requests to access phone and e-mail records were made in 2008, according to the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The Home Office said the powers should be used only when "proportionate".
An average of about 1,500 surveillance requests were made every day in Britain in 2008, according to figures which have emerged from an annual report by commissioner Sir Paul Kennedy.
That is the annual equivalent to one in every 78 adults being targeted.
Although slightly down on 2007, the total number of requests last year was up by more than 40% on 2006, and it included 1,500 approved applications from local councils.
The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, and not a blueprint
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the figures "beggared belief".
"Many of these operations carried out by the police and security services are necessary, but the sheer numbers are daunting," he said.
"It cannot be a justified response to the problems we face in this country that the state is spying on half a million people a year. We have sleepwalked into a surveillance state, but without adequate safeguards. Having the Home Secretary in charge of authorisation is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning and not a blueprint."
Local authorities in England are still spying on suspected minor offenders despite being banned from doing so by law. Since 2003 they have only been able to use undercover methods against those suspected of breaking criminal law, but the chief surveillance commissioner said it was of "significant concern" that some local authorities were going beyond what was allowed. He was especially worked up about the use of CCTV to monitor people.
In his annual report for 2008, published on 21st July, Sir Christopher Rose raised concerns about "directed surveillance" - such as bugging of a public place or taking photographs of suspects - and the use of covert human intelligence, such as informants and undercover officers.
He mentioned "a continuing failure on the part of authorising officers properly to demonstrate that less intrusive methods have been considered and why they have been discounted in favour of the tactic selected. If, for whatever reason, the government does not wish public authorities to use powers conferred by Parliament, the proper course, it seems to me, is for Parliament to remove those powers."
Authorising officers are senior officials in local authorities, government departments and other public bodies who sign off surveillance requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
Surveillance by local authorities is not yet allowed to be intrusive, such as bugging of phone lines or entering premises.
In England /Wales it is restricted to suspected breaches of criminal law and should not be used to investigate suspected tax dodgers, for example, or on economic or public safety grounds.
Such exemptions do not apply in Scotland.
Sir Christopher warns that public bodies such as local authorities need to stick more closely to the rules.
He says: "A specific act of surveillance may not be intrusive but a combination of acts may enable the construction of a profile; this requires careful consideration when judging whether an individual's private life is subject to interference."
He added that authorising officers sometimes do not understand the need to gain specific authorisation to target people in a public place.
"It is not where the CCTV is placed (which may be overt or covert) but the manner in which the camera is used that is determinative of whether the surveillance is covert," the report says.
And he adds: "CCTV operators employed by local authorities are required to pass rigorous examination for the use of this controversial equipment, yet it appears that some police officers operate CCTV without obvious qualification."
Obviously, merely setting out guidelines is not good enough; there has to be a way of regulating this, and local bodies that overdo it must be accountable in law.
Having operated a CCTV camera myself, as a security guard, I'm aware of the traps. If something looks interesting you will close-in and follow it. That may be nothing more than a beautiful pair of legs. But legs belonging to a woman who has not signed any contract before becoming an unwitting performer. And a crowd of people - any crowd, may be suspect.
On the international level, the operators of remote-control armed drones take this to its extreme, by applying a 'rule of thumb' and just 'taking them out'. That is why it's dangerous to have a wedding celebration in Afghanistan. If you think this jump in context is fanciful, don't forget that Merseyside police began using (unarmed) drones in 2007.
Councils have been criticised for using CCTV/phone tapping powers to tackle dog mess.
The Lib Dems want tighter controls on surveillance powers for authorities including councils and the police, adding that only a magistrate should be able to approve a request for surveillance, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).
More than 500,000 requests to access phone and e-mail records were made in 2008, according to the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The Home Office said the powers should be used only when "proportionate".
An average of about 1,500 surveillance requests were made every day in Britain in 2008, according to figures which have emerged from an annual report by commissioner Sir Paul Kennedy.
That is the annual equivalent to one in every 78 adults being targeted.
Although slightly down on 2007, the total number of requests last year was up by more than 40% on 2006, and it included 1,500 approved applications from local councils.
The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, and not a blueprint
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the figures "beggared belief".
"Many of these operations carried out by the police and security services are necessary, but the sheer numbers are daunting," he said.
"It cannot be a justified response to the problems we face in this country that the state is spying on half a million people a year. We have sleepwalked into a surveillance state, but without adequate safeguards. Having the Home Secretary in charge of authorisation is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning and not a blueprint."
Local authorities in England are still spying on suspected minor offenders despite being banned from doing so by law. Since 2003 they have only been able to use undercover methods against those suspected of breaking criminal law, but the chief surveillance commissioner said it was of "significant concern" that some local authorities were going beyond what was allowed. He was especially worked up about the use of CCTV to monitor people.
In his annual report for 2008, published on 21st July, Sir Christopher Rose raised concerns about "directed surveillance" - such as bugging of a public place or taking photographs of suspects - and the use of covert human intelligence, such as informants and undercover officers.
He mentioned "a continuing failure on the part of authorising officers properly to demonstrate that less intrusive methods have been considered and why they have been discounted in favour of the tactic selected. If, for whatever reason, the government does not wish public authorities to use powers conferred by Parliament, the proper course, it seems to me, is for Parliament to remove those powers."
Authorising officers are senior officials in local authorities, government departments and other public bodies who sign off surveillance requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
Surveillance by local authorities is not yet allowed to be intrusive, such as bugging of phone lines or entering premises.
In England /Wales it is restricted to suspected breaches of criminal law and should not be used to investigate suspected tax dodgers, for example, or on economic or public safety grounds.
Such exemptions do not apply in Scotland.
Sir Christopher warns that public bodies such as local authorities need to stick more closely to the rules.
He says: "A specific act of surveillance may not be intrusive but a combination of acts may enable the construction of a profile; this requires careful consideration when judging whether an individual's private life is subject to interference."
He added that authorising officers sometimes do not understand the need to gain specific authorisation to target people in a public place.
"It is not where the CCTV is placed (which may be overt or covert) but the manner in which the camera is used that is determinative of whether the surveillance is covert," the report says.
And he adds: "CCTV operators employed by local authorities are required to pass rigorous examination for the use of this controversial equipment, yet it appears that some police officers operate CCTV without obvious qualification."
Obviously, merely setting out guidelines is not good enough; there has to be a way of regulating this, and local bodies that overdo it must be accountable in law.
Having operated a CCTV camera myself, as a security guard, I'm aware of the traps. If something looks interesting you will close-in and follow it. That may be nothing more than a beautiful pair of legs. But legs belonging to a woman who has not signed any contract before becoming an unwitting performer. And a crowd of people - any crowd, may be suspect.
On the international level, the operators of remote-control armed drones take this to its extreme, by applying a 'rule of thumb' and just 'taking them out'. That is why it's dangerous to have a wedding celebration in Afghanistan. If you think this jump in context is fanciful, don't forget that Merseyside police began using (unarmed) drones in 2007.
see also: http://hanleyexpress.blogspot.com/2009/06/ripa-council-snooping-is-growth.html
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
After 7/7: more liberties lost
That excellent and vital documentary, Taking Liberties, unfortunately unseen by most of its target audience as its UK distribution deal restricted it to out-of-town multiplexes and the ungrateful popcorn masses, has a worthy successor in 'Ludicrous Diversion', a new 20 minute film, which you can see at:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
Although it's basically about the London Bombings, it goes on to cover the moves made by the State and police using 7/7 as an excuse for yet more incursions into our liberties.
The self-interested behaviour of the police is documented back to the torture of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and others, to extract false confessions on the basis of which they were imprisoned for the most precious years of their lives, and the list of new police powers is examined in depth. One particularly interesting point is that officers are now permitted to arrest you only to ascertain your name.
I should add that I write as a witness to the fabrication by police officers of a spurious 'lost' CCTV recording, which appeared to exonerate an 'interested party' from criminal activity. I have also watched as officers committed acts of daring, nay, death-defying acts of perjury. There is hardly any need for further comment from me; the film says it all quite succinctly.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
Although it's basically about the London Bombings, it goes on to cover the moves made by the State and police using 7/7 as an excuse for yet more incursions into our liberties.
The self-interested behaviour of the police is documented back to the torture of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and others, to extract false confessions on the basis of which they were imprisoned for the most precious years of their lives, and the list of new police powers is examined in depth. One particularly interesting point is that officers are now permitted to arrest you only to ascertain your name.
I should add that I write as a witness to the fabrication by police officers of a spurious 'lost' CCTV recording, which appeared to exonerate an 'interested party' from criminal activity. I have also watched as officers committed acts of daring, nay, death-defying acts of perjury. There is hardly any need for further comment from me; the film says it all quite succinctly.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
When aliens stalked Bournemouth
In 1985, Bournemouth became the first UK town to be invaded by CCTV. Shortly afterwards, the cameras picked up an unidentified foreigner...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)