Queen's Speech: CCTV in the crosshairs

CCTV was in the crosshairs today as the Queen revealed the Government's legislative programme.

One of the 22 Bills announced today is the Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill which among other things calls for the "further regulation of CCTV".

The Number 10 website gives some details about the Bill here including these points:

• The main benefits of the Bill would include: "Protecting privacy by introducing new legislation to regulate the use of CCTV."
  
• The main elements of the Bill include: "Further regulation of CCTV."
• And existing legislation on CCTV is: "Data Protection Act 1998 and Regulation of Investigation Act 2000 (sic)". (Should be Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but never mind!).

Follow the link to a copy of a speech by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, and you learn more about the Government's intentions in this area (forgive the wordiness of the summation but I think a little context is important here):

• Early in the speech, he refers to hard-won civil liberties which need protecting. "This government will end the culture of spying on its citizens. It is outrageous that decent, lawabiding people are regularly treated as if they have got something to hide. It has to stop. So, there will be no ID card scheme, no national identity register, a halt to second generation biometric passports. We will not hold your internet and email records when there is no reason to do so. CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA storage database..."(It mystifies me why CCTV is lumped with DNA but that's a topic for another post).
  
• According to Nick Clegg, CCTV quashes dissent and limits freedom. "Our democracy has suffered at the hands of encroaching centralisation and secrecy for decades. Take citizens’ rights: eroded by the quiet proliferation of laws that increase surveillance, quash dissent, limit freedom." (I would take the opposite view and say that CCTV helps protect the freedoms of the vulnerable and the law-abiding citizens by helping to identify criminals who make some people's lives unbearable).

Of course to find out the true intent of the Freedom Bill, one has to go to the LibDem website where you can find the original document. Since this is Nick Clegg's baby, and he has the support of the Prime Minister, we can assume that this will go into the Government's Bill largely intact.

The Freedom Bill says in part 2, Chapter 4 "Regulation of CCTV": "(1) A Royal Commission is to be established to make urgent recommendations on the use and regulation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and the impact of CCTV on privacy."

This is elaborated on in the explanatory notes:

"Britain is the most watched society in the world. We have less than one per cent of the world’s population but a fifth of the earth’s CCTV cameras. In the Big Brother state that Labour has created, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) is all pervasive. There are over four million CCTV cameras in Britain – one for every fourteen people and you can be captured on camera over three hundred times every day. In the 1990s, the Home Office spent 78 per cent of its crime prevention budget on installing CCTV and an estimated £500 million of public money was invested in the CCTV infrastructure in the last decade.

"CCTV is not the panacea for crime many would have us believe. Outside of CCTV being used to catch speeding drivers; in car parks and to deter other property crime, there is little hard evidence to demonstrate that CCTV works to prevent crime or to bring offenders to justice. A Home Office study concluded that “the CCTV schemes that have been assessed had little overall effect on crime levels.” And a lot of CCTV evidence is unusable in court. Yet CCTV cameras are increasingly prevalent across the country and the technology is becoming more advanced all the time. More and more cameras, for example, are now incorporating automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) software. It is staggering; therefore, that CCTV is essentially unregulated.

"The Liberal Democrats believe that before we sleepwalk any further into a surveillance society in which our every move is recorded, the use of CCTV should be publicly debated with a review to its full regulation. A recent report by the House of Lords concluded that the UK “leads the world” in the use of CCTV but despite this, there were “few restrictions” and no clear legal limit to their use. Increased use of ANPR has only heightened these concerns. Now is the time to act. The Liberal Democrats believe that a Royal Commission should be established to make urgent recommendations on the use and regulation of CCTV in a bid to protect privacy. Many local authorities, such as Cambridge City Council, have already done sterling work in producing codes of practice governing the use of CCTV. This would seem as good a place as any for the Royal Commission to start their investigation and to consider giving such codes statutory force."

Regulation of CCTV is on its way. This government has the votes and the will to do it, so the industry should begin lobbying now for a form of regulation that will work, rather than something that's designed to hobble owners and operators of CCTV systems who, at the end of the day, are simply trying to protect their customers, staff or property or, in the case of publicly owned systems, help the police to protect the public.

Registration: a first step in the regulation of CCTV

Regulation of CCTV is in the public gaze once again, with the Government set to regulate CCTV as part of their Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill (more on that later).

Surely one of the key planks of regulation has to be registration of CCTV systems and cameras nationally. In the same way that the Security Industry Authority (SIA) requires all personnel in licensable sectors to be registered, so they can monitor and control them, so would cameras and monitoring systems require registration in order to be controlled.

Some questions that have to be asked when proposing a national registration scheme are, Who would be responsible for collating that information and to what use would that information be put?

I think a reasonable purpose in gathering that information is to assist the police in identifying the location of cameras that could be potentially useful in investigating crime.

What if you required each police force to map the cameras in their area and required the owners of CCTV systems within that area to register their cameras with the police, on pain of a fine per unregistered camera? (Fines would not be automatic but only imposed after giving organisations a warning to comply).

To avoid it becoming a database nightmare for anyone to manage, you could create an online tool which enables organisations to register themselves and then declare the locations and retention periods of each of their cameras. It would take an organisation with a small number of cameras very little time to complete the task (30-45 minutes at most) and then all they would have to do is re-confirm the information on a regular basis (12 monthly?).

Police would then make quarterly returns to the CCTV regulator and/or the Information Commissioner and, voilà, you have a highly accurate camera count and map of the cameras (both public and privately owned) in the country.

In addition, the Regulator would then have a comprehensive database of CCTV owners to whom could be passed information on codes of practice, image quality, data protection, and so on.

Regulation is not a panacea for the industry: it won't make people spend more money to replace shoddy CCTV systems. It won't clean the dirty lenses on ancient cameras, it won't adjust the back focus nor improve the lighting. It's up to the owners of CCTV systems to do that, and the only thing that will get them to pay attention is greater education about the importance of installing and maintaining systems that are fit for purpose.

But one thing that regulation would do is enable the police and government to get that information out to CCTV system owners in a more efficient manner, ensuring that everyone with a system received regular updates on legislation, codes of practice and system management.

And the other thing that regulation would do is answer this perennial question of how many cameras we have in the UK and where they are located. If we had that, it would be an invaluable tool for investigators and put the UK firmly in the lead again in the use and management of CCTV systems.

CCTV Image CI38 - April 2010 edition

Bus robbers caught with help of CCTV

Without CCTV and audio recording on this bus, would these two thugs - who assaulted and robbed a bus driver - have been caught, prosecuted and convicted?

Criminals were apprehended and banged up long before CCTV was widely available, but cases often turned on witness statements which have to be weighed up and considered alongside testimony from the defense.

However, this image and the audio that went with it proved compelling evidence for the court. Not only did it show the severity of the attack, in which the bus driver was punched three times, it also recorded the audio of the robbers claiming they had a gun.

By supporting the victim's testimony, CCTV not only helps to prove the case but also assists the court in establishing an appropriate sentence, one that is commensurate with the actual severity of the crime.

In this case, the defendants were each sentenced to over three years in prison. What are the chances that if there hadn't been CCTV, and the court had had to rely solely on the bus driver's testimony, that the defendants would have got off with a much lighter sentence?

More details of the case here.

Big Brother Watch is watching you

It never fails - you get up in the morning, determined to do some real work, only to find that someone has dropped a spanner in the works.

The spanner in this instance is a “study” by an organisation called Big Brother Watch into the “explosion” in CCTV cameras in this country. It used Freedom of Information Act requests to ask, how many CCTV cameras are controlled by local authorities.

The conclusion? There are “at least 59,753 CCTV cameras controlled by 418 local authorities in Britain, up from 21,000 in 1999”.

The figure is questionable as the CCTV User Group’s own estimates for public space CCTV cameras in the UK is closer to 35,000. And BBW includes 3,376 cameras which are classified as “internal” as opposed to public facing CCTV cameras.

It’s also not known how many of the cameras that councils reported are ones they monitor on a third-party contract basis – ie, the council monitors them but doesn’t own them. Also, not all cameras are used for crime prevention purposes, so some councils may include those cameras in their reported numbers and others may not. Did all councils use the same definitions in reporting their numbers?

The figures for individual councils are interesting and potentially useful but they have to be checked against the CCTV User Group’s own figures before we can attest to their veracity.

The overall figure is one that is certain to be used again and again by the mainstream media and foes of CCTV, but would probably be best filed under the headings of “anecdotal” and “apocryphal” estimates.

In defence

What can we say in defence of CCTV, if in fact these numbers are accurate? I suppose you’d have to say, guilty as charged.

Local authorities have continued to put up CCTV in response to the demands of the electorate. What’s remarkable is that local authorities have found the money to finance more than 40,000 CCTV cameras. If you take an average figure of, say, £15,000 for the installation of a camera (which in some parts of the country would be a modest figure), that means that councils found from various sources something like £600 million to install CCTV over the past decade, or about £60 million a year.

That doesn’t take into account annual operating expenses to keep the control rooms running which can vary, depending on the council, from £250,000 to £2 million a year for the very largest control rooms. If we take an average of £500,000, we get approximately £210 million operating costs (HEALTH WARNING: this is a very rough estimate – clearly, I need to put in my own FOI request!).

Compare that to the annual policing budget in England and Wales of £10 billion, and the investment in CCTV looks quite modest.

Nonetheless, councils are spending money on CCTV. Before the foes of CCTV start crying “waste”, it should be pointed out that your average CCTV control room is more than just a CCTV control room, it provides services for many other socially beneficial functions. If you are going to have operators in the control room 24/7, why not have them monitor social alarms for the elderly and vulnerable, handle out of hours emergency calls and monitor burglar alarms at council buildings.

The real point here is that councils for the most part feel they are getting value for money because otherwise they would decommission it. Yes, councils are free to turn the systems off at any time because they are not a statutory service (at least not yet). The fact that a few councils like Skipton have turned off their small systems is not proof that CCTV is a waste of money but rather that councils could turn the systems off if they wanted to, but the vast majority do not.

Cost effectiveness

If we analyse the cost effectiveness of CCTV systems, we first have to define what we mean by “effective”. If we choose a very narrow definition of effectiveness, we could measure just detections, arrests and assists. If the average CCTV system got credited with just 1,000 of these incidents (a low figure for a 100 camera system) and they have an annual operating budget of £500,000, then we could say each incident cost £500.

Now consider that if you hand that evidence to the police, how much time will that save them in investigating a crime? Certainly more than £500. And some crimes might never be solved without CCTV, for instance the murders of prostitutes in Ipswich in 2006, the investigation of which relied heavily on CCTV images.

As I mentioned already, CCTV control rooms are natural focal points for other vital council services, including Careline and similar schemes which provide a friendly voice on the end of the telephone to thousands of elderly people who otherwise would have to move into care homes. As Peter Webster at Slough pointed out to me in a recent Rooms with a View article, the peak activity levels on Careline calls dovetails very neatly with the troughs in CCTV activity, with the result that his two or three control room operators are kept busy throughout the day and night with these two activities.

The annual spend on local authority CCTV systems pales into insignificance compared to the policing budget of more than £10 billion a year. If we followed BBW’s recommendation and transferred the entire CCTV budget to the police, firstly the police would lose an invaluable source of intelligence which they use on a regular basis and you would only boost policing budgets by a paltry 2.5 per cent.

Not that we can rely on BBW’s use of figures. Its report plays fast and loose with the numbers, citing as an example Staffordshire Moorland’s decision to spend £500,000 on a new CCTV system, money which BBW claims would have funded 22 new police officers. Even if we accept BBW’s cost for a police officer of £22,680 (and that’s disingenuous because that’s the starting salary and doesn’t take into account support and ancillary costs), £500,000 would only fund those officers for one year. What do you do then? Sack them all?

If you take the average lifetime of a CCTV system as being between five and ten years, and factor in 20 per cent ancillary costs to the price of a PC (including pay rises after the first couple of years) and then add in the annual monitoring costs of the system (£20,000), you might get three or four extra officers per year from that money. Given that it takes at least four officers to man a complete 24-hour shift, 365 days a year, the result is precisely one extra officer walking the beat for your investment.

I think that doesn’t hold a candle to the benefits of having 40 CCTV cameras, providing continuous monitoring and recorded evidence at potential crime hotspots. All provided at zero cost to the police - no wonder they love CCTV.

Caught on camera

BBW further states that the quality of footage “is frequently too poor to be used in courts”. I don’t know where he gets this idea from, but according to DCI Mick Neville of the Metropolitan Police Service’s Circulation Unit (which collects and circulates images of suspects caught on CCTV), even the poorest quality images are useful to police investigations. He told me in a recent interview that, according to his research, quality of images is not an issue, and he collects the vast majority of his images from some of the worst CCTV systems in London (namely, privately owned systems, frequently corner shops and pubs and clubs).

BBW says control rooms are rarely manned 24 hours a day. According to CCTV User Group research, that is not the case – almost all large systems are manned continuously, it’s smaller systems that rely on part-time monitoring.

Anyway, what point is BBW trying to make? First it complains about the expense of these systems then it complains that councils aren’t funding continuous monitoring. It seems to me that they are not quite sure what they want from CCTV.

Finally, one last thought for BBW and others who oppose CCTV

Video surveillance is a discretionary function for councils. If you oppose it, why don’t you, as a test case, use the power of democracy and try to convince three councils to decommission it? Take a small town system, a metropolitan borough (outside London) and a London borough and mount campaigns to scrap CCTV. I’m sure you could find local residents to champion your cause. You could provide them with technical and logistical support and see how far you get.

I doubt you would succeed but it would certainly be more effective than your anti-CCTV “Guerrilla Sticker Campaign” – and create less of a blight on the environment!

New standards for the use of CCTV images, as well as new guidance to ensure that police use CCTV images more effectively

The news comes after the Home Office’s own experts found in a series of reports that CCTV was only effective in cutting vehicle crime and has little effect in reducing other offence.

Andy Rennison, the current Forensic Science Regulator, is understood to have been given the task of implementing the 44 recommendations of the two-year old National CCTV Strategy .

The strategy called for the creation of a “basic CCTV infrastructure” while also promoting “CCTV and its expansion by forming evidence-based business cases”.

There has also been frustration that despite the growth of the cameras, they are used only to solve a fraction of crimes. One source said: “Police need to make better use of CCTV evidence - they need a more systematic approach to ID suspects.

David Hanson, the Home Office minister, is expected to tell MPs that by the end of March, 17 of the 44 recommendations will have been implemented. A handful of the measures which have been overtaken by new technology are under review.

The CCTV network in the UK is already the largest in the world with the equivalent of one camera for every 12 people. Yet questions have been raised about its effectiveness.
Earlier this year research by the Home Office found that flooding town centres and housing estates with cameras did not have a significant impact on crime. In one city, it only led to increased reporting of offences to the police.

An analysis of 44 research studies found that cameras are at their most effective in reducing car crime in car parks, especially when used alongside improved lighting and the introduction of security guards.
The Campbell Collaboration said 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.

Charles Farrier, a spokesman for campaign group NoCCTV, said the statement on the implementation of the strategy showed that “they are ploughing ahead regardless” of the criticism over the use of CCTV.

But Tom Reeve, editor of CCTV Image magazine, said: “CCTV is very effective to police to investigate crimes, even when the images not crystal clear. They lead to other avenues of investigation

original article: Telegraph.co.uk

CCTV Image magazine 36 - December 09

CCTV User Group Conference 2009

CCTV User Group 2009 conference from Security Media Publishing

CCTV User Group 2009 conference.
Four Pillars Hotel - Cotswolds

Networking event for end-users and commercial members of the User Group to meet and discuss HOT Topics

CCTV Image issue 34 - PDF

CCTV Image magazine - Issue 36 - Advance features

Advance features list – issue 36 – November 2009
Articles being considered for our next issue – (Subject to change)

· Rooms with a View: case studies of control rooms and CCTV systems around the country
· London Borough of Bexley: This London borough will shortly begin a complete refurbishment of its control room. We will be looking at the plans for the new facility, and how they hope to transform the existing room into a state-of-the-art CCTV and emergency control centre.
· Transport for London: TfL and 13 London Boroughs are actively developing a scheme which enables the sharing of local authority and roadside CCTV cameras. Not only does it save money and reduce duplication of effort, it is also boosting levels of cooperation between various London agencies including TfL, London Boroughs, and the police.
· CCTV User Group conference: Extensive coverage of this keystone event in the CCTV industry diary including:
· Several sessions on operators and factors that affect their performance
· Covert surveillance and counter-surveillance
· Video analytics
· National CCTV strategy
· Securing cash in transit with CCTV
· Several case studies of groundbreaking CCTV systems
· And more excellent reasons to read CCTV Image:
· Prof. Martin Gill – a regular column from the CCTV academic and director of the Perpetuity Group.
· Talking Shop – with some of the leading consultants in CCTV today.

DEADLINES
Editorial: 26 October 2009 Advertising: 2 November 2009
CONTACTS Editor – Tom Reeve
Tel. 020-8255 5007
Fax 020-8255 5007
tom.reeve@cctvimage.com
Sales – Jack Lunn
Tel. 01543-250734
Mob. 07912-479916
jack.lunn@cctvimage.com
Sales – Nick Sutton
Tel. 01543-250592
Mob. 07794-579417
nick.sutton@cctvimage.com

CCTV Image Magazine -issue 35

Advance features list – issue 35 – September 2009

Articles being considered for our next issue – (Subject to change)

::Rooms with a View: case studies of control rooms and CCTV systems around the country
· Newark and Sherwood District Council: Predominantly rural, Newark and Sherwood presents challenges for CCTV monitoring. The council has recently upgraded its CCTV systems from analogue to IP, but CCTV manager Mark Henry has plans for further development in cooperation with the IT services department.
· Slough Borough Council: We visit Peter Webster, head of the CCTV system at Slough, to find out about his ambitious expansion plans. Peter already has a close working relationship with Thames Valley Police to monitor ANPR cameras in the Borough, and he has plans for further developments that will make Slough an attractive partner for neighbouring areas looking to outsource their monitoring.
· Sussex Police: Working closely with BT, Sussex police have completely revamped their CCTV system. Operating two control rooms (down from four) covering some 30 towns and cities in this largely rural police force area, the system is, according to BT, a model for large scale monitoring systems which cover a wide geographical area.
· IP camera standards - ONVIF: Interoperability between IP CCTV products – that is, how cameras, video recorders and control systems can work together – is key to the future development of IP CCTV. In this issue, we take a look at ONVIF, the Open Network Video Interface Forum. Next issue, we look at the Physical Security Interoperability Alliance (PSIA), a predominantly American organisation, committed to similar objectives.
· High Def CCTV: coming to a control room near you soon? The HD CCTV Alliance has been established to help transport this technology – increasingly wide-spread in the entertainment industry – to the security industry. We interview some of the leaders of the HDCCTV Alliance.
· And more excellent reasons to read CCTV Image: · Prof. Martin Gill – a regular column from the CCTV academic and director of the Perpetuity Group. · Talking Shop – with some of the leading consultants in CCTV today.

DEADLINES
Editorial: 7 September 2009
Advertising: 7 September 2009
CONTACTS
Editor – Tom Reeve
Tel. 020-8255 5007
Fax 020-8255 5007
<mailto:tom.reeve@cctvimage.com> tom.reeve@cctvimage.com
Sales – Jack Lunn and Nick Sutton
Tel. 01543-250456
Mob. 07912-479916
<mailto:jack.lunn@cctvimage.com> jack.lunn@cctvimage.com

CCTV Image the Blogathon begins

Good Morning from Tom Reeve, Editor of CCTV Image.
Welcome to our blog.

CCTV Image - Magazine & website
CCTV Media - Website

If you have any security news or views, please don't hesitate to drop me a line - tom.reeve@cctvimage.com

In addition, you may download or view our Media kit and study the advertising and editorial opportunities with CCTV Image magazine and its readership.

CCTV Image Media Kit (PDF)

Download or view the Media Kit here

Kind regards to all from the team at CCTV Image and CCTV Media.