I n t e r v i ew | CCTVIma g e Regulator balances security, liberty


The debate between civil libertarians and the security industry over CCTV surveillance is highly charged. Pity then the man who has been thrown into the middle by a coalition government which is itself divided on the issue. CCTV Image spoke to Surveillance Camera Commissioner Andrew Rennison


“NEW HD CCTV puts human rights at risk,” screamed the headline on the front page of The Independent newspaper. With a subheading that read, “Watchdog warns: Big Brother Britain has arrived unnoticed,” it was enough to make you fear the UK had become a police state overnight. The watchdog in question was the Surveillance Camera Commissioner Andrew Rennison, and as luck would have it, this magazine had a prearranged appointment to meet him that same day. Coincidence? Maybe, but the timing was good because Rennison was ready to talk candidly regarding his concerns about the surveillance state. “CCTV systems capable of identifying and tracking a person’s face


from half a mile away are turning Britain into a Big Brother society, the UK’s first surveillance commissioner [sic] has warned,” read the first paragraph of the article. Rennison was concerned that these new high-definition cameras


were a potential breach of human rights legislation but, despite this, were being rolled out across the UK without public consultation. The public would be justifiably angry, he continued, if facial rec- ognition systems and HD cameras were allowed to proliferate. “The technology has overtaken our ability to regulate it,” he was quoted as saying.


CCTV and coffee I met Andrew Rennison in a coffee shop across the road from the


Home Office because, as he said, getting into the Home Office was a security nightmare and then it would be nearly impossible to find a meeting room. One of the first things I noticed when we went in was the mini-dome


CCTV cameras tucked into the corners of the ceiling, oddly appropriate for the conversation that was about to take place. Rennison was keen to bring up The Independent article. I hadn’t seen


it at that point, so he gave me a quick overview of its contents. I was surprised by the tone of the article and consequently my first question was whether he’d been misquoted. He reassured me that he had not been misquoted. “It is typical front


page hyperbole,” he said, “but it gets some very important and consist- ent messages across, about how modern surveillance technology has moved in the past few years.” But was he admitting that he, the newly-appointed CCTV commis-


sioner, had been put in charge of an industry that was out of control? “Modern facial recognition systems and high-definition camera systems – which you know as well as I do – are in widespread use,”


ANDREW RENNISON


he said. “It is very good technology. I just question whether, with the use of that modern technology, does the public understand how it is being used?” And he added, “If we don’t take the public with us, will there be a backlash?”


Surveillance by consent Now there is some argument as to whether CCTV systems are as


advanced as Rennison makes them out to be, but in fairness, it is rea- sonable to assume that at the current pace of development, technology like this will become increasingly widespread. For instance, recognising a face from half a mile away is fraught with technical problems: lens technology that allows you to achieve this is currently too expensive for anything apart from military and special- ist police use. Most pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) heads don’t have the degree of fine motor control to enable you to track a person at that distance – the image would jerk and jump around no matter how carefully the operator attempted to move it. And the best facial recognition software would be incapable of keeping a gallery of more than 100 faces in its database. However, as we know, technology has a way of moving on and for


all I know, these points may be superseded by developments before this article is even published. So Rennison’s argument is not at all undermined by the fact that technology isn’t quite as good as he says it is because, by tomorrow, it very likely will be that good. He believes that as the technology improves, we are in danger of


losing public support for CCTV as people perceive the technology to be more and more invasive of their privacy. Based on public opinion polls carried out by the CCTV User Group


and supported by the findings of other independent polls, public sup- port for CCTV ranges between 70 and 90 per cent, depending on how you phrase the question. Those are enviable statistics, especially considering that the police


enjoy an approval rating of between 55 and 70 per cent, again, depend- ing on how you ask the question (source: British Crime Survey). Given that enviable level of public support, the CCTV industry


should be concerned about anything that might erode those figures – which is exactly the point that Rennison is making. CCTV is a powerful technology and depending on how it is used, can be very intrusive of privacy and the CCTV commissioner’s role is to


Biography of a CCTV regulator


Andrew Rennison has served as the forensic science regulator since 2008. He was the first regulator to be appointed to this office through the public appointments process. In September 2012, he was appoint- ed the UK’s first surveillance camera commissioner, a position cre- ated by part 2 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Prior to that, Rennison was the director of intelligence at the Gambling


Commission for two years, where he helped during its formative years (it was established in 2005 and assumed full powers in 2007) to establish the commission as the regulator of the British gambling industry. According to his biography on the forensic science regulator’s website, this involved the development of policies, procedures


and relationships with stakeholders, to pave the way for licensing, regulation, investigation and the prosecution of offences under the Gambling Act 2005. Prior to joining the Gambling Commission, Rennison completed 30


years with the police in London and West Yorkshire. He has worked at all ranks as a detective, including a period in


charge of the scientific support functions in West Yorkshire and finishing as detective chief superintendent in charge of teams dealing with intelligence, organised crime, counter terrorism, child protection and covert policing. He has an MSc in investigative psychology.


Wint e r 2013 10


Issue sponsor www.securitynewsdesk.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36