Everyone wants more CCTV, apparently

3rd March 2011 13:32 | by Peter Brett

On Tuesday 1st March, the Second Reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill was debated in the House of Commons. As you may be aware, the Protection of Freedoms Bill introduces the requirement for a Code of Practice for CCTV installations, something that the Pirate Party has been demanding for some time.  Several MPs expressed the opinion that there was nothing wrong with CCTV, and far from demanding regulation, constituents were demanding more of it.

Jack Straw said:

I have had many representations about closed circuit television. I do not know whether my experience is any different from that of anyone else in the Chamber, but all the representations I have received about closed circuit television have been requests from constituents to introduce more of it. In the whole of my 32 years in this House, I have never had a single representation seeking the removal of CCTV monitors. Not one. The demand is there because it makes people feel safe, and I bet that this experience is shared across the Chamber. [c232]

Several MPs, including Gareth Johnson, Jim Shannon, Tom Brake, Pamela Nash, David Davies, and Clive Efford, agreed with this point of view.

So, we need to alter that. Please write to your MP today, letting them know that you support the provisions of the Bill with respect to regulation of CCTV. You may wish to mention that CCTV evidence is rarely of sufficient quality to be able to identify an individual, let alone be used as evidence in a court of law. You may also wish to point out that, in an age of restricted government expenditure, a well-designed Code of Practice will help local authorities and police to ensure that they get good value for money from CCTV installations in terms of actually preventing crime and catching criminals, and will help them avoid wasting funds on "feel-good" CCTV in places where it is likely to be ineffective.

Tagged as: CCTV

Share

2 comments

Mar 04 2011 09:03 by cctvsceptic
Please do not unquestioningly write to your MP endorsing the CCTV provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill - all is not as it may seem. First read the Bill and the draft code of practice consultation released by the Home Office.

The press release for the Bill states:

the introduction of a code of practice for CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems (overseen by a new Surveillance Camera Commissioner) to make them more proportionate and effective

( see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-cent ... ing-reform)

The consultation document is at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

Consider the following from the cctv code consultation document:

A cornerstone of a free and confident society is the State’s duty to ensure that its citizens
are sufficiently protected so that they are able to conduct their legitimate business in safety
and security. We do not intend therefore, that anything in our proposals should hamper the
ability of the law enforcement agencies or any other organisation, to use such technology as
necessary to prevent or detect crime, or otherwise help to ensure the safety and security of
individuals. What is important is that such use is reasonable, justifiable and transparent so
that citizens in turn, feel properly informed about, and able to support, the security measures
that are in place.


No mention is made of the mountain of evidence that shows that CCTV does not significantly prevent or detect crime. No real mention is made of the impact that cameras have on freedoms.

The cctv provsions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill are not about reducing CCTV - far from it. It's about making people "feel properly informed about, and able to support, the security measures that are in place."

Just because Jack Straw says people want more CCTV you should not presume that the bill lays out plans for less CCTV - it does not. Read the consultation document - if anything its about more CCTV.

The arguments about CCTV evidence rarely being of sufficient quality to be able to identify an individual were put out by ACPO and the Home Office in their 2007 National CCTV Strategy. Do not fall into the trap of throwing their rhetoric back at them so that they can use it to upgrade the surveillance state.

We urgently need a proper, well informed debate about CCTV cameras.

The No CCTV website has some analysis of the bill at:
http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/blog/protecti ... bingo!.htm
Mar 05 2011 09:03 by PeterBrett
Hi cctvsceptic; thank you for your post! I agree entirely that the proposed Bill doesn't go far enough! However, it does make some important and relevant improvements. At the moment, local authorities can install CCTV at a whim, with no consistent guidelines in place to ensure that the CCTV usage is appropriate to the situation that it is being used for.

Although it is likely that the creation of a Commission and the introduction of guidelines won't make an immediate impact on the levels of CCTV deployment, it will creaate a framework within which it will be much easier to campaign for increased regulation of CCTV. I think it makes sense to support the Bill as a significant improvement over the status quo (which is , let me remind you, a free-for-all where no oversight or consistent policy is in place and local authorities install CCTV wherever they like and for whatever purpose they like (usually, apparently, as security theatre for people who mistakenly believe that it makes them safer).

I think we have to choose our battles. In this case, I believe that the Bill is as strong on the subject of CCTV as we are likely to get in the immediate future, and we shouldn't pass up this opportunity to make things better just because it isn't perfect.
Post a comment