CCTVIma g e | I n t e r v i ew
make the public aware of that. Hence, the concept of surveillance by consent. “There’s a huge and important principle of policing by consent so we don’t have a militaristic police force and it operates locally with the full involvement and support of the public. We need to develop a similar policy around surveillance,” he said.
Transparency “My role is all about creating transparency so the
public are very aware of what is happening and can support it,” he said before warning: “If the public is kept in the dark, there will be a back- lash.” I asked him, given the level of public support
Andrew Rennison
that CCTV currently enjoys, how realistic is this scenario really? He pointed to the Information Commissioner’s report of 2006 which claimed the UK was sleepwalking into a surveillance society. “I question whether modern systems are keeping the public sufficiently informed about their use. If it continues, I fear there could be a tipping point.” The question is what distinction does the public make between
publicly and privately owned CCTV systems, because the differ- ence between CCTV cameras and the police is that the police are publicly accountable whereas 95 per cent of CCTV cameras are owned and controlled by private organisations. So my question to Rennison was, to what extent should we regulate private CCTV systems? “That’s the debate we need to have,” he acknowledged. “How much
of this needs regulating?” Pointing to the CCTV camera in the corner of the coffee shop where
we met, he said, “Should they be more transparent about their surveil- lance systems? Should I be able to log onto the Caffè Nero website and be able to see what systems they’ve got and who has access to them?” I replied that I could ask the manager, if I really wanted to know. “They should have it on their website,” he replied. “To create real transparency.” In practical terms, what difference would that make? “The public would then know what’s happening – that’s the point,”
he said. “At the moment, we are largely blind. The cameras are not that obtrusive and most people probably don’t realise that they are there. On the transport systems, I defy you to find the cameras that are on most train carriages – they are very well hidden.” But people already know about CCTV cameras because there are
signs and it’s often announced over public address systems. “It goes a long way toward it,” he said, “but you should be able to go
on the website and learn more about it.” As an example, he cites the Cambridge City Council website which
he said provides a lot of detail about the city’s CCTV system and is very simple and straightforward to understand. And he added, significantly: “I want the public to be very aware of
what is going on so they can give their consent – or not.” I asked him if most council websites aren’t explicit enough about
their CCTV systems. He replied that most of them have some information on them. “But
are they very clear about the modern technology that they are using? Do they disclose the high-definition systems they are using?” Wouldn’t that be giving away too much information, I ask. His reply was an emphatic “No.” But he wouldn’t expect the police to reveal all their trade secrets,
would he? “They [the police] frequently do,” he replied. “And a lot of what they do is exposed through the trial process anyway.”
Issue sponsor
www.securitynewsdesk.com
Covert v overt One of Rennison’s concerns is the difference
between covert and overt surveillance. Covert surveillance is regulated under RIPA, the
regulation of investigatory powers act, which is over- seen by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner (which shouldn’t be confused with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner but frequently is). “If you are operating in the covert arena, then
it’s very well regulated and the police operate in a very responsible manner,” he said. “And if you operate in the overt arena, organisations are very open about what they are doing. If you are stuck in that grey area in between, I get very jittery.” Was he perhaps referring to Project Champion,
the ill-fated CCTV scheme in Birmingham? “There was a lack of transparency,” he said. “What I’m arguing [with surveillance by consent] is that if
they had been open and transparent from the start, the residents of those areas would have had a right to object to the cameras from the beginning.” What would have happened if the police had actually been open
about their concerns about terrorism from the start? “They couldn’t have, could they?” he replied. “There’s a dilemma
– that’s the grey area – but if they need to do covert surveillance, then they should get it properly authorised under RIPA.” He continued: “Human rights legislation says, where you are con-
ducting surveillance, overt or covert, there has to be a pressing social need for it. Does the absence of transparency allow you to understand what that pressing social need is? It doesn’t, does it?” Was the closure of Project Champion a major blow to counter terrorism? “No, I wouldn’t agree. I think we have got confused in the debate
about trusting the state to deal with these issues and to police by con- sent,” he said. “Policing goes on, counter terrorism goes on. The whole argument that I’m using is that, if you want to use these tools, we have to take the public with us.”
Anti-CCTV bias? Given that what he had been talking about could be construed as being
anti-CCTV and the fact that his office was born out of the Protection of Freedoms Act (and the Liberal Democrat’s manifesto pledge to control CCTV), was his office not inherently anti-CCTV? “No,” he replied. “If you read the government’s stance, they support
the use of CCTV provided it’s used responsibly. “I fully support the use of CCTV: it solves crime, it gets people
locked up, it reassures the public. I just want to be very guarded that it doesn’t cross that line where it fails to reassure the public and they become angry and confused at its misuse.” So what is his prescription for CCTV? “We need a code of practice that makes it very clear what the respon-
sible authorities are supposed to do. You have to make it clear what the pressing social need is that requires you to put surveillance in. “Have you considered all the alternatives? Have you publicised what
you are doing? Have you consulted on it? Have you done your privacy impact assessment on it (which is already a requirement under data protection regulations)? “Follow those simple requirements – which doesn’t layer a lot of bureaucracy on you because you should already be doing this anyway – and you will take the public with you. “And if the public doesn’t like it, they can object.” Indeed, they can object, as Project Champion proved. Fortunately for
those who believe in its power to fight crime, between 80 and 90 per cent of the public support the use of CCTV in their area.
• The UK government has launched a consultation on the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. For more details, see page 6.
Wint e r 2013 11
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