Are you being watched?

Back in 1995, I took up a post with a local authority in Scotland. This was at the start of the CCTV phenomenon.
Although my post did not involve CCTV work, I was given a tour of Council offices as part of a standard induction procedure. This included the CCTV control room. The staff showed me how the system worked, in particular by focussing the cameras in on ‘attractive’ women, including their faces, legs, breasts and backsides.
This was part of the ‘canteen culture’ of local authorities. At the same time, it was routine to have 2-3 pints on extended lunch breaks (more in the Benefits Agency where I also worked briefly!), which indicates a historic casual and unprofessional tradition within local government. So, this behaviour is likely to be widespread, perhaps endemic, and safeguards are needed to avoid the infringement of human rights.
1. All CCTV control rooms should be placed under CCTV surveillance to prevent such misuse of this equipment by operators. It will also safeguard the various human rights including the right to privacy and the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. Qui custodiet ipso custodes?
2. A human rights impact assessment should be prepared for every existing and new camera, requiring the benefit of the camera to be proven in relation to any acceptable impact on human rights and privacy, with appropriate mitigation measures. Consideration could include crime statistics and any demand for, or objection to, CCTV in that area. Impact assessments are supposed to be used for schemes – whether they are is another matter – but I believe an impact assessment should be carried out for every camera. This is actually easy to do, and a simple matrix with a scoring system could be used on a rolling basis. In fact the UK is out of step with Europe on this issue and I am surprised there hasn’t been a legal challenge in the European Court.
3.Planning permission should be required for every CCTV camera. At present, individual cameras are invariably considered “permitted development” under the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (Class 33) [and equivalent legislation in Scotland] unless they are more than 4 (per side of building) or 16 (per building) in number, or are mounted on a pole, or breach other conditions regarding siting and visual impact. Planning permission should be conditional on a satisfactory impact assessment based on the material planning issues of ‘impact on residential amenity’ and ‘need’ as well as the Human Rights Act. Note that planning authorities can suspend permitted development rights without legislation (Article 4 direction). I am a chartered town planner and I would be happy to review any objections against planning permission for CCTV free of charge.
I am not against CCTV in principle, but it is used for entirely the wrong purposes, to try and justify cuts in on-the-street police and to generate cheap instant (and often unusable) evidence in prosecutions. It should be used only to allow quick police response to
So here is a summary of the practical measures that could be undertaken to redress the balance between public protection, human rights and civil liberties.
- interior CCTV monitoring of CCTV control rooms.
- impact assessment requirement for every camera.
- planning permission requirement for every camera (conditional on acceptable impact assessment)
Is this something the Tories might take up???

The offending council in Alex’s report state in their own Code of Practice relating to CCTV use: “3.3 The CCTV system will be operated at all times with due regard for the privacy of individuals and in accordance with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998. It will not be used to invade the privacy of any individual in residential, business or other private premises, buildings or land.”
That camera should be pointing at the nearby zebra crossing, there is absolutely no reason, according to the owners of that camera, for it to be pointing in that direction.

There is a temporary solution to this. A laser pointer on a tripod, pointed directly at the lens, will blind the camera until it is moved away. An alternative would be to shoot the glass with a paintball, but you risk damaging it and being prosecuted for criminal damage.

Reason for the camera in the CCTV room is this: Qui custodiet ipso custodes? I worked in military operations rooms with CCTV to allow accountability in the event of an investigation. I imagine the unions would oppose the issue on “human rights” grounds which would expose the hypocrisy of the system.
Why not put a bag over the offending camera and then photograph/film the council workers when they come to remove it? Maybe have a local newspaper report as well. Could even develop a “custom range” of anti-CCTV bags with drawstrings and logos, call then “privacy clamps” or something!
The council will have a complaints procedure that involves two tiers of complaints at council level (these are normally a waste of time unless something is manifestly wrong and there is potential media interest…as in this case) as well as complaint to the ombudsman. Can go to court as well. Use the FOI act on camera policy and sitings. Joined-up “public safety” policing (community safety partnerships etc) is very much in the early stages and there is unlikely to be an evidential base (from crime statistics) to justify the siting of cameras.
The campaign needs to be fought on two levels: within the system and without the system. Requiring impact assessments and planning consent is easily achievable and would be “within the system”. Activist campaigns “without the system” add pressure for systemic changes.

@Stasination
If you are an elector in Wandsworth, I would recommend that you complain to your councillor. The Director of Technical Services is one of a number of overpaid high officials who don’t respond well to enquiries direct from council tax payers. The Director, however, has to respond quickly to a councillor’s enquiry.

LeChiffre – Cheap laser pointers can be bought in markets, or off ebay. The ebay ones are more reliable, but more powerful (so more likely to damage the CCD of the camera).

The mind states are five, and are subject to pleasure or pain; they are painful or not painful.

we can’t take the issue up with the Council concerned on his behalf.

Iit is terrible that you are being watching all the time. Just be free.