(see) pabilities (see)
Smarter solutions (listen) | Welcome and News Smarter solutions (listen)
CCTVImage Welcome and News Additionals CCTV User Group Conference – 10th June to 12th June Peter Fry,
Director, CCTV User Group
s (speak) AT of writing, weeks before
THE time eight the
event, conference bookings have gone extremely well, with more rooms
booked than any of our conferences since 2010 (and we still have more rooms available to us), and all exhibitors spaces booked. We also have a higher proportion of system managers to ser- vice companies attending which is great news for all, not that we don’t welcome the service companies, but they welcome more potential customers attending as well!
The programme is now being finalised, and the speakers will be covering all the issues that CCTV managers should be aware of, whether they be new to the world of public area CCTV or are ‘old hands’ looking for improvements or
CCTV IN FOCUS
new approaches which they can discuss with other delegates, or companies about in the informal networking sessions.
Smarter capabilities (see)
Key speakers include Andrew Rennison (Surveillance Camera Commissioner) accom- panied by Alastair Thomas of the Home Office, who will update delegates on the recent public consultation on the CCTV Code of Practice. Paul Cartlidge of the Security Industry Authority will discuss the new licensing regime for public area CCTV operators, while Dr Craig Donald, an industrial psychologist, and popular speaker at our conferences from South Africa, will be utilising several case studies to illustrate how ‘incident detection’ can be improved.
Jim Aldridge, who many will remember was the prime lead for the PSDB and wrote many of the manuals for public area CCTV in the 90s that are still in use to date, will be looking at the critical issue of ‘image quality and picture value’. With the increasing move from fibre-optic
to networking systems, Mike Harrison Jones will be looking at the benefits and cost savings
of migrating to private networks and Tony Elvidge of Comtrol will talk about IP networks and making an informed choice.
Many managers have already followed Gordon McLanaghan’s approach to multi- functional control rooms, and he shares his thoughts about future proofing the viability of the control room and the benefits the authority has achieved.
And there is yet more! The programme also includes a presentation by our chairman Peter Webster on ‘new technology matters’ which I know delegates will find absolutely fascinating. Other presentations will cover incident logging and CCTV maintenance; updates from Mick Neville on how to triple CCTV identifications; a new refresher training approach for PSS CCTV operators; new ideas about control room management and a recent public survey carried out by Synectics on how the general public would run CCTV.
All this together with the usual workshop sessions to debate the issues discussed in the presentations and the networking opportunities
Cont’d next page
Firstly, my most sincere thanks to all members who completed the User Group survey on the Home Office consultation for the CCTV Code of Practice and all those who submitted their views directly to the Home Office. Members will have seen the results of the survey which I must admit slightly surprised me, but determined the formal User Group response. Two-thirds of User Group responses came from LA CCTV Managers, 11 per cent police, the remainder were unspecified or private operators. More than two-thirds were interested in the implications for CCTV and one-third in ANPR. I cannot say the results below are fully repre- sentative of membership views as the response was about 10 per cent of our membership, but I do believe this response was largely due to the amount of documentation they had to assimilate.
Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s draft code of practice cent not being sure!
The survey results began with a very high degree of support for the implementation of the Code with 90 per cent agreeing and only 10 per cent disagreeing, but this support tended to reduce as the questions devel- oped. 84 per cent agreed the Code clearly outlined the scope of organi- sations subject to regulation and 74 per cent agreed the Code clearly outlines what is meant by Surveillance by Consent.
However support reduced to 64 per cent agreement that it will ensure greater transparency on the part of system operators, and 63 per cent considered the Code would ensure greater privacy for private and family life and lower still only 52 per cent considered the Code would increase effectiveness in meeting the stated purpose.
74 per cent agreed the Code made clear the obligations for the different users, 95 per cent that the guiding principles in the Code are relevant to the regulation and 84 per cent agreed that the Code sits well alongside existing roles and regulations. Only 44 per cent however agreed that the roles of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Surveillance Commissioner were clearly differentiated with 17 per
Issue sponsor
www.securitynewsdesk.com
There are clear doubts though that the Code and role of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner will ensure the success criteria will be met with only 15 per cent agreeing, 65 per cent disagreeing and 23 per cent not sure. This concern is also apparent in agreement about the cost and benefits in the impact assessment with 42 per cent agreeing, 32 per cent disagreeing and 26 per cent not sure. The final question was should the British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Authority, Ministry of Defence Police and Serious organised Crime Agency also be included as relevant Authorities and required to abide by the Code. The general view was all law enforcement should work to the same regulations (except Civil Nuclear Authority) with over 70 per cent agree- ing both BTP and MoD should, 60 per cent SOCA, but only 50 per cent for the Civil Nuclear Authority.
SCOPE OF REGULATION CONCERN
In summary, there was a generally considerable support in respect of the questions asked but these tended to deal with the process of regulation rather than principal issues. Additional comments made by members do raise major critical issues that were not addressed in the questions. The greatest concern is that with so many non-public authority cameras out- side of regulation, it simply cannot meet the aims.
Relevant authorities already operate their systems to very high pro- fessional standards, subject to DPA, HRA, RIPA, FoI etc. with other organisations, businesses or home users involved in CCTV monitoring having no incentive to be compliant and it is these that create most of the privacy concerns and should be included in any form of regulation, to be more accountable. We look forward to Andrew Rennison and Alastair Thomas shining
more light on the responses to the consultation when he addresses our conference on the 11th June.
Spring 2013 5
Sma
Additionals
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