• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Civil rights organisations capitulate on CCTV reduction

By JP Floru

Jp115 Yesterday I witnessed the lamentable spectacle of civil rights organisations bending over backwards not to lose their wished for influence over the government’s civil rights agenda. 

I attended a Freedom Bill Committee hearing in Parliament.  The witnesses included spokespeople for the human rights organisations Justice and Liberty.  At issue was the CCTV part of the proposed Freedom Bill.

One after the other they clambered to “reassure” the MPs that they didn’t campaign to fight CCTV or do away with CCTV.  What they wanted was…better regulation.  At times they were positively gushing about “the step in the right direction” this government is setting with the proposals to regulate CCTV.  Never mind that not a single CCTV camera will be scrapped as a result of this Bill.  It was only upon the pointed question by Steve Baker MP as to what they thought the general aim of a CCTV policy should be that they timidly uttered:  “fewer cameras”.  But they did not subsequently tire themselves into stating what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the Bill: that it manifestly fails in this primary aim.

 The civil rights’ organisations tactic is obvious:  they want to ensure that they continue to have the government’s ear (real or imaginary).  They have apparently decided that the battle about the very existence of millions of cameras has been lost.  So they try to obtain the best outcome with the cards in hand: better regulation (for some of the statist mindset regulation is of course always an aim in itself).

So it is now left to a few oddball individuals and eccentric politicians to fight the very existence of millions of cameras spying upon our every move.  One attendant looked wistfully through the window at the Thames: would the water be cold?  Soma was needed, urgently.

Nobody knows the precise number of CCTV cameras in the UK.  The consensus seems to be that there are about 4.5 million.  Security experts believe there will be 8.6 million by 2018.

As some MPs correctly pointed out at the hearing, there are cameras because people ask for them.  People feel safer, partly inspired by a few high profile cases where CCTV was instrumental in catching the criminals.  There are many studies which have proved that in reality CCTV is not an effective crime fighting tool.   In a CCTV Task Group two years ago I asked a young gang member what difference the presence of a CCTV camera made to him.  “I put m’ hood on”, he said.  In some cases CCTV cameras have lured people into a false sense of security – wandering through areas which are positively dangerous.  Never mind: the curtain twitchers ask, and the politicians give, irrespective of cost, proportionality, effectiveness or philosophical desirability.

Most people are not bothered about the presence of CCTV cameras.  “I do nothing wrong.  Why should I fear the cameras?” is a commonly heard response.   Most people only change their views when they see a camera being pointed into their bedroom.  Or a tape is obtained by somebody who shouldn’t.  Or an attempted suicide in 1995 is caught on CCTV and shown on national TV.   Situations like that are too grave to wait until a majority of the population suffers from it.  That is why freedom minded individuals rely upon civil rights organisation to fight the battle, even when we are losing it.

Those freedom minded individuals were let down yesterday.  Believing that CCTV is bad, while at the same stating that when it’s regulated all will be fine is a fine example of Orwell’s doublethink: the acceptance of two contradictory beliefs to fit in with the system.  Let’s hope the civil rights organisations come to their senses. 

Posted on March 23, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCTV
  • Richard Craven

    Very good article. I was brought up to believe that, if you want to take someone’s photo, you ask first. It’s called manners.

  • Steve Jolly

    Now it’s left to unpaid volunteers to challange the surveillance state. One campaign group that’s dedicated to fighting against camera surveillance in the UK is NO CCTV: http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/
    No CCTV has repeatedly pointed out that the definitive evaluation by the Home Office concluded that CCTV “did not have a significant effect on crime” (Campbell Collaboration, 2008). And that far from being a one-off, this finding echoed and reinforced numerous reports that preceded it. These were not the findings the Home Office wanted, so the inconvenient evidence was simply brushed aside and ignored in favour of a disengenouously pro-CCTV message, which has been instrumental in manufacturing public support and consent.
    Not only does CCTV represent a costly failed experiment that has not fulfiled its stated objectives, we have sacrificed more than we yet realise and have gained nothing in return.
    We are increasingly seen as suspects, not citizens, and the nation is gradually being taken into custody by the state.
    No CCTV points out the fundamental problem with regulation:
    “Regulation does not address the core issues of removal of personal freedom, anonymity and other rights. We believe that all regulation does is to endorse acceptance of CCTV by formalising its “proper use” and leaving no room for the rejection of such technology.”
    Curiously, No CCTV was not invited to give evidence on the Bill. Instead, Liberty was there to defend our freedoms. Unfortunately Liberty proclaimed that, “We’re not against CCTV – I don’t think any sensible person would be.”
    I sincerely hope that our pals at Big Brother Watch do not follow Liberty’s path, but instead uphold a tough stance against the camera surveillance that is changing our society for the worse and re-writing the definition of ‘freedom’.
    For more info visit:
    http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/

  • barry laughton

    Unfortunately, it’s the normal story, the rebel organisation is seduced y the mainstream

  • Simon Lambert

    Earlier this month a major study properly calculated the number of CCTV cameras in the UK, to improve on the hitherto ‘wild stabs in the dark’ that you are still trotting out above. There are not 4.5 million cameras. There are ~1.85 million. Individuals are not viewed ’300 times a day’. The actual number is ~70 times. I expect you wish to demonstrate to others in the ongoing debate that you are up to date and not using old discredited figures as part of your argument.

  • NeverSurrender

    Sigh. :-(

  • Steve Jolly

    It is left to ordinary (unpaid) members of the public like me to oppose the surveillance state and defend our fundamental rights and freedoms. I gave evidence to the Protection of Freedoms Bill committee today and I am proud that I gave it to them straight.
    Some of the panel approached me afterwards and told me they agreed with most of what I had said. They were probably glad that at last somebody had said it. I’m glad it was me.
    To watch my testimony skip to 15.50:
    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8042
    For more info visit http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/

  • NeverSurrender

    Steve can you post a different link please so that I can watch your video? I don’t want Microsoft Silverlight on my computer but I can’t watch the video without it.

  • Steve Jolly

    NeverSurrender, I hope this works (Windows Media Player):
    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8042&player=windowsmedia

  • NeverSurrender

    Thanks for the other link Steve but I am afraid that I do not want Windows Media Player on my computer either. The problem lies with me because I don’t want any Microsoft software on my computer at all. Perhaps your video will turn up on You Tube.

  • Winston Smith

    @Simon Lambert
    “Individuals are not viewed ’300 times a day’. The actual number is ~70 times”
    Thank you for clarifying that. I feel sooo much better now! A mere ~70 times. I think I might celebrate by visiting Tescos in my dressing gown.

  • NeverSurrender

    I think that everyone should have the right not to be filmed or photographed without consent unless there an extremely good reason for doing so. I rarely promote yet more legislation but it is the only way that I can think of that would reverse the grotesque surveillance in the UK and protect our privacy.

  • http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/ Steve Jolly

    @ NeverSurrender
    The transcript of my oral testimony to the ‘Protection of Freedoms’ Bill Committee on Thursday 24th March is now up on Hansard, the parliamentary record:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmstand/output/110324p-09.htm
    To read the written evidence I submitted to the Bill committee earlier last week is here:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/memo/pf20.htm

  • NeverSurrender

    Thanks Steve. You put forward a very reasoned and I think, effective case against CCTV cameras.
    One thing that I think that you could mention in the future is something that is always completely overlooked. That is the negative effect that CCTV surveillance can have on those people who find the surveillance intolerable. It severely affects their ability to lead normal lives by excluding them from places where there are CCTV cameras which is almost everywhere nowadays. These people are being done great harm by being prevented from going about their lawful lives by what they see as an act of gross anti-social behaviour by the state upon them. Yet they have no one to complain to and no one even listens to the distress caused to them by these cameras. This is very, very wrong and far outweighs any of the dubious benefits of CCTV cameras.
    The fundamental principal of freedom is violated by CCTV surveillance and what we need is not rules about what is done with surveillance footage or who watches it but rules to prevent it from happening in the first place. We need laws to protect us from being placed under surveillance without there being a very good reason for doing so. We now need the right not to be filmed if we don’t want to be. It is the only way to stop us from descending into a total surveillance state which is not very far away.