Majority of UK's CCTV cameras 'are illegal'

[Geezah]

The vast majority of Britain's CCTV cameras are operating illegally or in breach of privacy guidelines, a new watchdog has warned.

Up to 90 per cent of surveillance cameras may be breaching the Information Commissioner's code of practice laid down to stop cameras being used inappropriately.

Even more seriously, a large proportion of the UK's 14.2 million cameras breach the Data Protection Act and so are illegal, the watchdog CameraWatch warned.

The illegality of many cameras will lead to future clashes in court and possible acquittals of suspects, predicted the organisation's chairman Gordon Ferrie.

Mr Ferrie, a former policeman, said: "Our research shows that up to 90 per cent of CCTV installations fail to comply with the Information Commissioner's code of practice, and that many installations are operated illegally.

"That has profound implications for the reputation of the CCTV and camera surveillance industry and all concerned with it."

Mr Ferrie added that CameraWatch, a non-profit making independent body, is not against CCTV as a crime-fighting tool, and said that surveillance pictures are as useful to police as DNA forensic evidence.

"There is nothing better than actually seeing someone commit the crime," he said. "All we are asking is that the images that are taken are compliant with the Data Protection Act."

Under the code of practice and according to the Data Protection Act, CCTV cameras must be visible with clear signs. In addition, camera operators have an obligation to stop images of individuals being seen by third parties.

Mr Ferrie said that operators most commonly breach these rules by not keeping recorded tapes secure, meaning they could potentially be stolen.

The rise of digital cameras opens up further problems because the images can easily be shared as digital files rather than remaining on a closed loop.

Defence counsels in court could theoretically question the legality of CCTV pictures in order to have the evidence dismissed or the case thrown out.

The issue has not yet been tested in court, but one such case could set a precedent throwing into doubt the whole surveillance network.

However, the Information Commissioner's Office today denied that CCTV rules are being broken on a large scale.

Ken Macdonald, Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland, said: "We welcome the initiative by CameraWatch to promote compliance with the Data Protection Act.

"We are not aware of any evidence that supports the suggestion that 90 per cent of CCTV cameras are not complying with the ICO Code of Practice. We don't believe there is any such evidence.

"Where we receive complaints that CCTV is being used in breach of the Data Protection Act we will investigate. We have a range of enforcement powers at our disposal."

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/31/ncamera131.xml)

I hope this does go to court, as I feel personally it is a breach of ones privacy(to a point).

IMHO, I feel that the powers that be are relting far too much on technologie to fight crime.

[vinny_121_ND]

I don't mind them if it deters rapists, robbers, murderers etc from doing their thing. Security has a price, and if it means my face being on closed circuit tv for it, fine.

If they take them down, crime may increase, then the public will then ask for more police patrolling = more tax money = hate the government = vote for someone else to put cctv back in place = more money wasted.

[Benny]

These laws are completely outdated. Cameras are here to stay and it's completely useless to demand some sort of permit for each individual camera.

The law should regulate only if you use the images in a correct and legitimate way.

Benny

[Hydro]

It's a breach of your privacy if it covers your personal space, home, garden etc, but public places and private businesses I have little problem with - provided you are informed you are on CCTV. I've not seen any CCTV in purely residential areas except for private "gated" communities. They're all in High Streets, shopping arcades, parks and so forth.

[TheKiwi]

Ha, I had a mate who lived in a flat across the road from the Brixton town hall. They had to make it a house rule only to snort/smoke/whatever with the curtains closed after watching a Police Camera program that showed footage from a camera on the hall that could see into their lounge. :D

[H3]

I hope this does go to court, as I feel personally it is a breach of ones privacy(to a point).

IMHO, I feel that the powers that be are relting far too much on technologie to fight crime.

With thast massive post count you don't need to worry mate as you never seem to go out anyway , leave them catch all the bad folk unless your not telling us something mmm !!!!

:roll:

[CMNot]

Vinny if you read between the lines you'll see that when the likes of a rapist gets caught, the legality of the camera plays an important part.

If the camera is breaching FoI laws, its evidence will be inadmissible, so even if it caught Johnny Rottencock raping a nine year old, if that was the crux of the prosecution he would likely walk.

Personally I loathe the things. Not least because if I put one on my house and it catches someone robbing me, the evidence is inadmissible for reason stated above. Which is, frankly, gay.

[Geezah]

With thast massive post count you don't need to worry mate as you never seem to go out anyway , leave them catch all the bad folk unless your not telling us something mmm !!!!

:roll:

Well, there you have it. I need not complain about something due to a high post count?!

Why not address the arguement at hand?

While they may work in the few cases after the fact, they do little to nothing to stop people from breaking the law.
It would be nice if we could see evidence that cameras are a valid reason to decrease the resources the boys in blue need/get? I personally would prefer to see more boots on the ground.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Maybe its about time to make all those illegal cameras legal.:)

[vinny_121_ND]

Vinny if you read between the lines you'll see that when the likes of a rapist gets caught, the legality of the camera plays an important part.

If the camera is breaching FoI laws, its evidence will be inadmissible, so even if it caught Johnny Rottencock raping a nine year old, if that was the crux of the prosecution he would likely walk.

Personally I loathe the things. Not least because if I put one on my house and it catches someone robbing me, the evidence is inadmissible for reason stated above. Which is, frankly, gay.

What. That's retarded. This is totally backwards. If the police did a wrong thing in collecting evidence, therefore, whatever they collected is not evidence. Remember the quote from the movie swat: "Sometimes, doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing".

K, well, my suggestion is that cameras be strategically placed where this stuff won't happen and bite you back. Of course, all camera technology can be defeated (ie blind spots, spray painting them etc) even if they are installed everywhere.

[Calanen]

If the camera is breaching FoI laws, its evidence will be inadmissible, so even if it caught Johnny [deleted] raping a nine year old, if that was the crux of the prosecution he would likely walk.



I doubt it. If the police dont take the video, it doesn't matter if its illegal. If the Police video is illegal, than, that is a problem but it can still be admitted with leave.

[vinny_121_ND]

yeah that's right. a tape shows something, there will always be physical evidence left behind in all crime scenes no matter how careful someone is.

[Calanen]

What. That's retarded. This is totally backwards. If the police did a wrong thing in collecting evidence, therefore, whatever they collected is not evidence. Remember the quote from the movie swat: "Sometimes, doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing".


That may be your opinion, but its not that the law in the UK. Improperly obtained evidence can be excluded, but its a balancing test depending on the nature of the misconduct used to get the evidence, the public interest in the case of the evidence being admitted, and whether and to what extent the case can be run at all with the evidence in. [In very general laymans terms, Im not going to spam up the forum with the complete test and a load of case references.]

It's not just a question of, the evidence was obtained with improper procedure and therefore is automatically excluded.

[Brzezinski]

big brother will keep you safe

[ce267]

do you think cctv is really usefull?or it assists to decrease crime rates..

l have been london 10 years ago...there was too much cctv systems in everywhere..but very low number people could be seen in the streets after 18.00...

problem is laws..because penalties are very unsufficent to prevent crimes...

[Calanen]

do you think cctv is really usefull?or it assists to decrease crime rates..

l have been london 10 years ago...there was too much cctv systems in everywhere..but very low number people could be seen in the streets after 18.00...

problem is laws..because penalties are very unsufficent to prevent crimes...

CCTV does reduce crime, but it is only one of many strategies that are needed.

The problem of crime is an all encompassing one - it needs to be tackled on a number of differrent levels, not just law and order, not just sentences, not just cameras - but:

- education in schools about laws, law and order, detailed education, what our law is, how it works, why it's there, why you should obey it, what happens if you dont;

- realistic sentences that are geared towards rehabilitation, genuine - through hard work and attempting to improve life situation for those who are committed to doing so. Not just locking people in a room where they are bashed, raped and killed by other inmates. That just makes them come out more bitter and twisted than when they went in. Also, some people should never come out, pedophiles, murderers, slashers, rapists. But people who are in for middle of the road crimes, like fraud and so on, should be able to be turned around.

- realistic forcible drug treatment programs - where a person is brought before a court, labelled an addict, and involuntarily committed to a program of detoxification until treated;

- proper career guidance counselling, that tells kids how to manage money, how to get a mortgage, how to budget, what salary ranges are in each career bracket (accurately) so they can make some meaningful choices about what to do with their lives;

- urban renewal and money spent on activities for children so that crime and drugs are less of a temptation;

- free breakfast for children at school, so they can concentrate and learn without being hungry.

Right at the end is the law and order stuff. Saying that harsher sentences will fix crimes, is like telling the goalie in the soccer team that he is the only one that needs to train hard so the team wins its matches. I would like to get to people, long before they are heading for prison.