Pirate Party UK

Drafts talk:Privacy Policy/CCTV

From Pirate Party UK Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Please discuss any issues arriving from the CCTV page here.


Contents

[edit] CCTV

[edit] Introduction

[edit] Purpose of CCTV

[edit] Effectiveness of CCTV

[edit] Current Law

[edit] Other Criticisms of CCTV

[edit] Questions

[edit] Suggestions

Suggestion 1.1 Clear guidance on what the legal requirements of operating a CCTV system are (differentiating between those covering public and private property) including the relevant sections of the Data Protection Act 1998;

Useful guidance to all relevant persons of the law is always a good thing. -- Cabalamat 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about distinguishing the actual law from general guidelines for use. -- Duke 15/9/9

Suggestion 1.1a Advertising campaign to publish this information (possibly requiring the inclusion of documentation with CCTV equipment for sale).

The way to do this is for the govmt to publish the legal guidlines (in plain english, not legalese, obviously) on a web page (or group of pages) and require the url to be put on documentation with the equipment -- Cabalamat 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
or even a small (A7, say) piece of paper with a few points to be included in packaging, or rather information which needs to be included somewhere, like safety warnings. -- Duke 15/9/9

Suggestion 1.1b Issuing of example signs to be placed in premises covered by CCTV systems.

Again if this is to be mandated, include the url which details regulatory requirements. -- Cabalamat
Some sort of downloadable "CCTV Pack" containing a selection of images in a variety of formats. -- Duke 15/9/9

Suggestion 1.2 Enforced registration of (non-residential)15 CCTV Systems and the related Data Controller including;

What is registration intended to achieve? On the whole I'm against regulations that impose burdens on businesses/people.
If there is to be registration, it should be simple to do. My preference would be for a web form. (all interaction with the govmt should be conducted using the internet wherever possible to save money) -- Cabalamat 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ideally yes - with an automated system (and one central database) but with a small department working for the Information Commissioner who can enter the registration details via post or 'phone. -- Duke 15/9/9

IMO there are two possible advantages to compulsory registration:

(1) when police do a criminal investigation they can quickly review the relevant cctv footage

(2) when the police kill someone (eg Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson) the relevant cctv footage doesn't conveniently disappear.

The way to fix these problem would be for every cctv camare to be registered on on online database with its location (given as a grid reference as well as postcode and postal address, so it's easy to search for all cameras within 100 m of a location). -- Cabalamat 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest it gives the government (and through them, the general public) a measure of control and some understanding on the distribution of cameras. At the moment, if there's a camera, the general public has no idea who is in charge of the data, how many there are, that sort of thing. The downside would be that it would give "criminals" information on where wasn't covered. But I agree with the grid reference, and postal address of the relevant Data Controller. -- Duke 15/9/9

All cctv cameras would be connected to the net and would continually upload images to government computers, controlled independently of the police. There would be a defined protocol which all cctv cameras would implement, and adding a new cctv camera to this network would be easy. It's probably best if everyone has access to the list of all cctv cameras. All cctv cameras installed after this date would be required to use this system. (And the same protocol would give a cctv operator access to the images from its own cctv cameras, because the imagies could be senyt to multiple servers, the govmt's one and the firm's one). -- Cabalamat 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I have a couple of problems;
a) who pays for the internet connection?
b) with publicly accessible data streams from all CCTV cameras, you'll end up with privacy issues and protests worse than Google Streetview. You will have people randomly browsing them to see what you can find. And would this include those cameras on private property?
I might agree with setting up local networks of "public" cameras that can be viewed in general, but there is still the risk of setting up vigilantes or something, not to mention being abused by individuals (including, potentially, the criminals they would be set up to protect against). -- Duke 15/9/9

In this way a policeman sitting at his computer could quickly access the relevant images.

This might be considered a breach of privacy; IMO there's a trade-off between privacy and effectiveness of cctv. Where that trade-off goes is a matter for the British people, but if Britain is going to have widespread cctv, it needs to be done in a way thats cost effective and allows the images to be quickly & efficiently retrieved by the authorities. -- Cabalamat

I guess it depends on what the cameras are for. If they are for catching criminals, then all that is required would be a register of where cameras are and who has the recordings.
Currently, if there is someone monitoring the cameras to keep track of people, that requires a security guard licence (I think). -- Duke 15/9/9


Suggestion 1.2b registration fee dependent on the number of cameras,

Is there really a point in a registration fee? in any case I envisage the entire registration process would take place over the net.

To cover the costs of maintaining the database and the sub-department for making sure that CCTV camera systems were being operated legally. Also, possibly as a disincentive for people setting up particularly vast/unnecessary systems? -- Duke 15/9/9

Suggestion 1.5 Ensuring that government- or council-owned CCTV systems are bound by the same (or similar) laws to privately-owned ones.

I don't see any reason why the requirements for council-run CCTV should be different than privately owned. -- Cabalamat 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

[edit] Vote Results

This does not include the results from the forum polls. --Duke 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1.1 Registration

What system of registration should be in force for CCTV cameras (including those operated by government organisations)?

Option Votes Percentage
1. All CCTV networks must be registered with the Information Commissioner. 2 25.0%
2. All non-residential (as in areas that would be covered by the smoking ban) networks must be registered, residential ones may be. 5 62.5%
3. All networks covering public space (e.g. roads, pavements, parks) must be registered. 1 12.5%
4. No compulsory registration 0 0.0%
5. More debate needed 0 0.0%


[edit] 1.2 Access to registration data

Who should have access to the database of registered CCTV networks (assuming such a database exists)?

Option Votes Percentage
1. The general public (through an internet-based system). 6 75.0%
2. All police, security services (and similar anti-criminal government agencies) and local councils. 5 62.5%
3. Local police forces (restricted to their own jurisdiction), security services. 1 12.5%
4. More debate needed/no database. 1 12.5%

[edit] Comments

  • The general public should have access to summary data; all police/security/local authorities should have full read-only access to the raw data.


[edit] 1.3 Central Network Existance

Should CCTV networks be connected to a central network?

Option Votes Percentage
1. All non-residential networks connected. 0 0.0%
2. All networks covering public spaces. 1 12.5%
3. No central network. 6 75.0%
4. More debate needed. 1 12.5%

[edit] Comments

  • Due to the already existing levels of CCTV cameras in this country, any form of network for monitoring of said network would need to be debated, including areas to be covered, exact nature of the situations intended to be covered, and the exact nature of the people entrusted to have access to such a network


[edit] 1.4 Central Network Access

Who should be able to access such a network?

Option Votes Percentage
1. The general public. 0 0.0%
2. The police, security services etc. 2 25.0%
3. Only local police (restricted to their jurisdiction). 1 12.5%
4. A new/separate government department (independent of the police). 0 0.0%
5. More debate needed/no network. 5 62.5%

[edit] Comments

  • As indicated above, debate on this issue is needed, including debate over the people that would have access to such a network, as well as strict guidelines on how the footage would be dealt with the ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected more thoroughly than seems to be the case currently
Retrieved from "http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Drafts_talk:Privacy_Policy/CCTV"