Is it time to regulate private CCTV?

The problem with calling for more ‘regulation’ of CCTV comes when you examine the details of the regulation being proposed, as I did in March 2011 when I was called to give evidence to the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee concerning the surveillance camera section of the Bill.

Calling for ‘regulation’ of CCTV might appear reasonable and desirable, but if that regulation is little more than a green light to ‘Carry On Snooping’ then it is a trojan horse and we really should be careful what we ask for.

In May 2011 I wrote a blog piece for Big Brother Watch entitled, ‘CCTV Code Will Usher In A New Dawn of High-Tech Surveillance’, outlining what is
wrong with the ‘Protection of Freedoms Bill’ and the proposed CCTV Code
of Practice contained within it. See here: http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/05/cctv-code-will-usher-in-a-new-dawn-of-high-tech-surveillance.html#.T1nxB3ntvoQ

Here are a few of my observations on the proposed CCTV regulation that I pointed out to the committee on 24th March 2011:

Steve Jolly: “The code of practice is really
an enabling Act which facilitates the proliferation and expansion of
the use of surveillance cameras. It is concerned mainly with technical
standards to do with compatibility and networking of systems. As
described in the code, it is designed to be an A to Z manual of how to
get the most out of your camera systems. It does not appear to have
anything to do with protecting the rights of the individual. There is
nothing in there about protection from
surveillance.”

[...] “We are discussing
minute details rather than fundamental principles to do with freedom.
The Bill and the provisions in the code of practice relate to things
like how long we should retain personal data and specific details like
that, rather than whether it should be taken in the first place.”

[...] “The technology has advanced dramatically and
incredibly rapidly, but the thinking on how to govern the issues of
personal privacy and personal freedoms has not moved with it. In fact,
if anything, it has gone
backwards.”

[...] ”
I cannot see anything in the Bill or the code
of practice that restricts or limits the use of surveillance cameras.
In fact, the Home Secretary emphatically stated that—I cannot
remember her exact words—there will be nothing that would hinder
the use of such technology for the use of crime prevention. There do
not seem to be any restrictions. There is nothing about limiting CCTV
in schools or toilets, which would certainly be worth mentioning. It
seems as if the code of practice is designed to standardise technical
equipment issues to enable networking. The focus is on the efficiency of the systems, not the
privacy of those people who are being watched by it.”

[...] “On the question of whether the code of
practice should or should not be legally binding, I think it makes
little difference to the protection of freedoms, because that does not
appear to be the purpose of the code of practice. Whether the
surveillance camera commissioner will encourage operators to abide by
the code of practice, or whether it will be legally enforceable, makes
little difference to the protection of freedoms, which is what the Bill
is supposed to be about, not the improvement of
surveillance.”

A transcript of my oral evidence to the committee can be found on Hansard, here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/110324/pm/110324s01.htm

A copy of my written evidence submitted to the committee can be found on Hansard, here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/memo/pf20.htm

My position on this proposed legislation is that ‘regulation’
does not address the core issues of removal of personal freedom, anonymity
and other rights. It simply endorses unquestioningly the acceptance of
surveillance technologies by formalising their “proper use” and
leaves no room for the rejection of such technology. This legislation is no more than an enactment of the National CCTV Strategy
written by ACPO in 2007 and constitutes an A-Z manual of how to get the
most out of surveillance systems. It has nothing to do with the freedom FROM
surveillance, or with protecting or restoring any freedoms already lost. It
places no limits or restrictions on the use of CCTV and ANPR surveillance
cameras and related technologies. It’s simply ‘business as usual’ and has
no place in a Bill that purports to protect our freedoms.

In relation to CCTV, ANPR and other forms of camera surveillance, the
‘Protection of Freedoms’ Bill is pure Orwellian doublespeak. It does the
exact opposite of what it says on the tin: it guarantees the further
erosion of rights and freedoms by enabling the expansion and proliferation
of state (and private) surveillance. Regulation in this case does not mean ‘putting
things right’. In the case of CCTV it ensures that we continue to to get it
wrong, except now we call it ‘best practice’. This legislation is
disingenuous, misleading and very worrying: it leads us further into a
total surveillance society.

‘Regulation’ must not be allowed to act as a fig leaf to preserve the status quo or to disguise the gradual but consistent incremental push in the wrong direction. We should therefore be explicit and clear about what we want any regulation to achieve, rather than simply asking politicians to regulate. Otherwise our politicians (irrespective of political party) will give us regulation which only purports to protect rights and freedoms and quashes our legitimate concerns whilst serving a consistently pro-cctv government policy.

Best regards,
Steve Jolly.
Spokesman, No CCTV’Campaigning against camera surveillance in the UK and beyond’For more information visit: http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/