I've written before about the appalling framework and use of the enormous CCTV network in Wandsworth (which brands itself "The Brighter Borough" – if they mean by which, the brightness of the glare of the flash from Big Brother's lens, then they're right). Indeed, our report released today shows that Wandsworth has the most CCTV in London both in absolute terms and weighted to reflect population, with 1113 cameras controlled by the council.
Today, over at the Daily Mail,you can read a story by Neil Bennett, a poor bloke who stopped his car for a total of 36 seconds and received two fixed penalty notices demanding a total of £240 from him.
The story reinforces two points I often make about our national approach to CCTV:
- The spirit and sense of the law should be the guiding force in using cameras, but an absurd, bureaucratic, petty, bullying approach is used instead. Giving and enforcing fines is all about taking up the tiniest infraction rather than actually asking, was there any danger posed here, or even any inconvenience? Here, there was obviously none (as the pictures accompanying Bennett's story clearly show). Wandsworth prefers to squeeze the last drop out of us, taking advantage of any chance to fine somone, rather than using any common sense.
- The justification for the expense and intrusion caused by the installation of the cameras was no doubt "public safety" – but here it is being used for revenue-raising.
Bennett writes that the masses of CCTV in the Borough has done nothing to make him feel safer. I don't imagine that he is alone.
By Alex Deane
BBC News – Council CCTV cameras treble in 10 years
The number of council-operated CCTV cameras has nearly trebled in a decade, privacy campaigners say. There are now said to be 60,000 cameras run from town halls across the UK.
Alex Deane, the director of Big Brother Watch, which carried out the survey, said: "The evidence for the ability of CCTV to deter or solve crimes is sketchy at best."
The study, entitled Big Brother is Watching, found that 418 local authorities control 59,753 cameras. Ten years ago, a similar study found that the total was 21,000.
The Times – Local councils ‘have trebled number of CCTV cameras in a decade’
Daily Mail – Council snoopers watch us on 60,000 CCTV cameras
Evening Standard – 8,000 CCTV cameras are watching you
Daily Mirror – 60,000 CCTV snoop cams
Daily Express – CCTV cameras 'being used as cheap policing'
Daily Telegraph – CCTV cameras trebled in ten years
Sky News – 'Big Brother' Councils Treble CCTV Cameras
Guardian – Britain's wasteful mania for CCTV
The Herald – Fears CCTV cameras used as ‘cheap alternative’ to policing
Our full list of media hits today is available in our media archive
Research conducted by Big Brother Watch reveals that in less than 10 years the number of CCTV cameras controlled by local councils has risen from 21,000 to 60,000.
Top lines from the research (full breakdown by local authority available here) include:
- There are currently at least 59,753 CCTV cameras controlled by 418 local authorities in Britain, up from 21,000 in 1999
- This equates to 1 council owned CCTV camera for every 1000 people in the country
Portsmouth and Nottinghamshire Councils are in control of the most CCTV cameras with 1,454 each
Residents in the Outer Hebrides are the most watched people in the UK with 8.3 CCTV cameras controlled by the council for every 1000 people. Portsmouth has the second highest number of CCTV cameras per 1000 people with 7.8
- The council controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras in Scotland is Fife with 1350 cameras
- The council in Wales controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras is Swansea with 326 cameras
- The council controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras in Northern Ireland is Belfast with 400 cameras
- The total number of CCTV cameras controlled by councils in London is 8,112, which equals 1.2 CCTV cameras for every 1000 people living in the capital. Wandsworth is the most watched borough in London with 1113 CCTV cameras, or 4.3 cameras for every 1000 residents
Research conducted by Big Brother Watch – the new campaign fighting intrusions on privacy and protecting liberties – has revealed that Britain’s local councils are currently in control of 59,753 CCTV cameras. When a similar study was conducted 10 years ago, the authors found there were approximately 21,000 cameras in just 86% of local authorities; which equates to a rise of 279 per cent in under a decade.
Big Brother Is Watching is the first report by Big Brother Watch bringing together the various arguments against CCTV and placing them alongside a definitive list of the number of CCTV cameras operated by Britain’s 428 local authorities, to establish the full extent of Britain’s local authority controlled surveillance.
Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:
"Local councils across Britain are creating enormous networks of CCTV surveillance at great expense, but the evidence for the ability of CCTV to deter or solve crimes is sketchy at best.
"The quality of footage is frequently too poor to be used in courts, the cameras are often turned off to save money and control rooms are rarely manned 24-hours-a-day.
"With crime on the increase, it is understandable that some people want more CCTV, but we would all feel safer with more police on the beat, there would be fewer crimes and those crimes that do occur would be solved faster."
To read the full report, which includes detailed information on every local authority, please click here.
… because the residents are smart enough to appreciate that it's not the best use of their money.
That's what they've voted for in a survey of their opinions about what to cut back on, in these difficult financial times.
But the Council has committed to a very pricey new round of spending on CCTV… so will they listen?
By Alex Deane
A concerned supporter has contacted Big Brother Watch with this photograph. It shows a camera which, he thinks, has been pointing into his block of flats – every day, for months. It looks pretty obvious to me that it's looking into the flats – judge for yourself.
It brought to mind the case of Mark Summerton and Kevin Judge, two nasty pieces of work who were convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of abusing their positions as CCTV controllers by using the surveillance equipment in their charge to spy on the intimate life of a young woman whilst within her flat.
On this occasion, for perfectly understandable reasons on the supporter's part, we can't take the issue up with the Council concerned on his behalf. But we are keen to do so for others. So – if you have similar concerns, please drop us a line – with a photo of the offending CCTV camera if possible…
By Alex Deane
From today, Facebook will automatically index all account users' information on Google. This allows everyone searching on Google to find and view parts of that information, unless the user actually opts out – the default setting is to allow this.
To change this option, when logged into Facebook, do the following:
- Click on Settings
- Click on Privacy Settings
- Click on Search
- Unclick the box that says 'Allow indexing'.
By Alex Deane
You are not only being watched – soon, you may be spoken to.
Hounslow Council are installing talking CCTV - which also boasts automatic facial recognition capacity- at a cost of £1.8 million (or the annual salaries of 79 new Police Constables).
Good investment, eh?
By Alex Deane
Courtesy of new EU rules, British fishermen are being bullied into having CCTV on their boats. They will be permitted to take fewer catches if they don't. It's to save the fish stocks, they say. The cameras are to monitor stocks, and also to spot fishermen illegally dumping fish.
So the environmental movement is driving the furtherance of our surveillance society. That's the first time I've made that connection and put it directly – I doubt that it will be the last.
By Alex Deane
I have written before about the liberties and freedoms of the law-abiding majority, a theme touched on more recently by Dylan. In that vein, the case of Munir Hussain is on my mind today.
Like Tony Martin, Mr Hussain is a man charged with harming those who broke into his home. This was no common or garden burglary. When the Hussains returned home from the Mosque, three masked men awaited them in their house. They tied up Munir Hussain's family and degraded them. The children must have been terrified for their lives, and the parents – including this defendant – must have suffered that worst of agonies, the fear that one's child is to suffer and, perhaps, to die.
Hussain fought them off and chased them and seriously injured one of them with a cricket bat. He has now been sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.
If he not had that adrenalin, that admirable, channelled aggression, he would not have been able to fight these men off and whatever they had planned for him and his wife and children would have been done to them. It is that adrenalin and aggression, aroused entirely by this most ugly of actions from his "victim" and accomplices, which led Hussain to chase them out and to strike them.
My question is this. Should the benefit of the doubt not rest with a man in his situation, grievously provoked and genuinely in fear for his life and the lives of his children? I accept that there are points beyond which we are not entitled to go, even when severely provoked. You are not entitled to tie up the burglar you catch in your house and torture him. But nothing in Hussain's behaviour seems to have been calculated or planned – it was a spur of the moment reaction to the invasion of his home by a gang of masked men and my instinct is to say, in choosing that path that gang took the risk of having what happened, happen.
I understand that he is to appeal. We will watch with interest.
By Alex Deane
Bonfires were lit, fatted calves were sacrificed and sparklers were sparkled up and down the land today at the news of the creation of the office of the CCTV Regulator.
I jest. Of course, given where we are, if he actually acts as a brake on bad behaviour and encourages good behaviour then the regulator is a good thing – because CCTV is now so ubiquitous, so pervasive and so intrusive that we need someone to be responsible for usage and abusage. But that rather begs the question, doesn't it..? Should we have so much CCTV?
I'm not a technophobe absolutist – there is an important role for technology in law enforcement – but it’s a question of proportion: CCTV is now the single most heavily-funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system, accounting for more than three quarters of spending on crime prevention by the Home Office.
We ought to learn from the fact that we’re the only country that’s gone so far down this path. The Shetland Islands has more CCTV cameras than San Francisco Police Department.
By Alex Deane