Dear Readers,

May I draw your attention to chapter 6 of Assessing the Impact of CCTV (2005), a Home Office report into the effectiveness of CCTV?

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

Written by Prof. Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs, the report is widely held up as "evidence" that CCTV doesn't work.

In Chapter 6, Conclusions: Reflections on the effectiveness of CCTV, the report states:

"It would be easy to conclude from the information presented in this report that CCTV is not effective: the majority of the schemes evaluated did not reduce crime and even where there was a reduction this was mostly not due to CCTV; nor did CCTV schemes make people feel safer, much less change their behaviour. That, however, would be too simplistic a conclusion..."

Why?

- Simply measuring crime rates is a poor measure of the effectiveness of CCTV. There are simply too many factors which complicate the analysis, not least the fact that the introduction of CCTV can lead directly to an increase in recorded crime.

- The role of CCTV in high profile cases is lost in overall crime figures, the police say. "The importance of the crime-fighting role that CCTV plays in this
way should not be underestimated."

- The report also, by its own admission, doesn't address the evidential value of CCTV, and police had a generally positive view of CCTV.

The most telling observation of his report is that we are still "learning how to use CCTV".

In my view, CCTV is very much a hit and miss affair at the moment, sometimes achieving tremendous breakthroughs, and other times disappointing the victims, the police, the criminal justice system, the media and the public by its failure to deliver the evidence.

It is shocking that 12 years after pouring significant sums of money into CCTV, the government doesn't have a system in place for counting the number of cameras in the country. What's even more shocking is that in all those years, the previous government failed to introduce a comprehensive system of regulation, so we are left with a piecemeal and not very reassuring patchwork of Data Protection, Regulation of Investigatory Powers, Human Rights and other such Acts to control it.

And the police! Where do I start? The police have failed spectacularly to formulate a comprehensive and strategic approach to the use of CCTV. There are isolated examples of best practice, but in the main it's catch-as-catch-can when it comes to using CCTV.

Investigating police officers are not trained to collect CCTV evidence. When viewing recorded images, many officers (not all, but quite a few) will concentrate on just one camera, ignoring the wealth of evidence that might be captured by neighbouring cameras. And that's in a CCTV control room, where the evidence is presented to them on a plate and there's technical support to guide them through the process; what happens out on the street where they are investigating an assault at a corner shop? Is this lack of curiosity, laziness or ignorance?

There are numerous and isolated examples of good practice within the police forces. Some have specialists to go and "sweep up" CCTV evidence for an investigation. Some units place liaison officers in the control rooms to improve communications and provide value intelligence. Many have given CCTV operators access to Airwave radio, but in some cases this was a long and hard fought battle and I believe there are still a few forces that continue to withhold this vital tool.

I know of only two police forces in the country that have a system for processing images from end to end: from collecting the images, to analysing their contents, to extracting ID shots and identifying the suspects. These are Cheshire Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police, but even the Met's approach covers only a limited number of boroughs.

I know of only two areas in the country where the police or local authority have attempted to count the cameras: Cheshire Constabulary (again!) and Salford. Cheshire revealed recently that in a county of approximately one million people, there are 300 publicly-owned CCTV cameras and 9000 which are privately owned but look over areas to which the public have open access (eg, interior and exterior of shops and petrol stations).

Cheshire Constabulary is notable for its use of CCTV, but then perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the deputy chief constable, Graeme Gerrard, is ACPO's lead on CCTV and a major driver behind the National CCTV Strategy.

Where does that leave CCTV? Despite the hodge-podge approach, CCTV continues to score impressive breakthroughs. In Bradford, CCTV is credited with an arrest after a man was apparently seen on camera killing a woman with a crossbow. Meanwhile on a daily basis, CCTV provides incontrovertible evidence which leads to suspects pleading guilty without the need to go to court. CCTV operators regularly provide police with invaluable evidence, real-time intelligence and visual backup, and there are many commendations issued every year for this assistance.

On the other hand, it comes as no surprise that CCTV is criticised when it fails to deliver the evidence, doesn't have strong partnerships with the police and can't even answer the basic question of how many cameras there are.

Should we condemn the entire enterprise because of this? I leave the final word to Gill and Spriggs: "Perhaps a balanced judgement of the success of any measure – and one that is not often discussed in crime-prevention evaluations – should be reserved for times when the measure is working to its full potential and is installed correctly and in the right place. How useful are lessons about the effectiveness of measures that are still not fully developed? There is no doubt, judging by the information presented here, that this country is still learning how to use CCTV."

There's more to this report, and if you haven't read it, I would urge you to download a copy from the Home Office website.

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

~Tom Reeve

FBI video: How to do CCTV

Consultants, manufacturers and the CCTV User Group can bang on about image quality, system set up and user training until they're blue in the face, but leave it to the Americans to produce a lavish video to get the message across.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - obviously getting fed up (giddit?) about bad video - has deployed the talents of Hollywood to dramatise the importance of installing a good system and maintaining it.

The video is built around a storyline of a domestic terrorist who's blown up a bus with a home-made fertiliser bomb. The FBI scrambles agents to retrieve CCTV footage that might help identify the perpetrator, but they are frustrated in their attempts by video that is so bad that you couldn't identify your own mother from it.

One of the characters asks the video lab technician, "Can you enhance that for me?", to which he replies: "Sorry, no - I'm not a magician and this isn't a TV show!"

Finally, they find a pharmacy which has an excellent CCTV system and luckily the system installer happens to be on site so he's able to download exactly what they need and provide them with a site plan, too!

Back at the lab, they quickly find a recognition quality shot (15 per cent screen) and moments later we see armed officers burst into a motel room and arrest the suspect. Talk about instant results!

The moral of the story is, your video system could help the FBI/police crack a terrorist case but only if it's up to scratch (no mention of it being your patriotic duty to maintain your system but the implication was there). OK, maybe a bit heavy-handed as storylines go but the script is engaging, the production qualities are fantastic and the narrator, Annie Wersching from "24", does the intro and conclusion, lending a bit of glamour and probably earning the undying gratitude of the FBI.

The video is well worth a look. If you write to them, they might even send you a copy of the DVD (can anyone say Transatlantic partnership?).



Hit tip to Simon Lambert, Kevin White and Ilker Dervish.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that Devon and Cornwall Police has also produced an excellent video about setting up CCTV in a pub or nightclub, entitled "Who are you looking at?". It's narrated by Prof. Martin Gill (OK, he's not Annie Wersching but he has gravitas, loads of gravitas) and benefits from high production qualities.

Hats off to Devon and Cornwall for producing this excellent video. They are happy to provide copies of the DVD in boxes of 50 copies for £100, ideal for distribution to pubs and clubs in your area. Contact Christopher Vercoe, tel. 01392-452691 or email christopher.vercoe@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk.

CCTV saves the "crossbow cannibal"

Prison guard's casual glance at CCTV screen stopped the 'crossbow cannibal' from killing himself

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285751/Guard-saw-crossbow-cannibal-Stephen-Griffiths-suicide-bid-CCTV.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0qXCIZR5W

That's the headline in the Daily Mail website today.

Stephen Griffiths, 40, who is on remand for murder at Wakefield Prison in West Yorkshire was seconds from death when a prison guard saw on CCTV that he had tied a plastic bag over his head.

Ironic, then, that Griffiths - who was arrested after a caretaker of a block of flats witnessed a man attacking a woman while he was reviewing CCTV footage - was saved by CCTV.

Or another way of looking at it: officers investigating this case have had two incredibly lucky breaks as a result of CCTV. According to the Daily Mail report, detectives rushed to the prison when they heard the news and were "incandescent with rage", having devoted enormous resources to the investigation.

All I can add is, thank goodness for CCTV. It has provided two vital breaks in this horrific investigation.

This incident highlights the need for regulation of CCTV. We were incredibly lucky that the caretaker of the block of flats reviewed the tapes. There is no law that requires the owner of a CCTV system to review recorded footage, so thank goodness those procedures were in place at these flats. Perhaps this is an area that the government could look at when they are reviewing regulation?

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.