Morning:
8°c
David Cameron will today vow to take on the "scandal" of public drunkenness and alcohol abuse that costs the NHS £2.7 billion a year
More...
Most CCTV cameras are 'illegal', watchdog claims
Last updated at 14:22pm on 31.05.07Footage from millions of CCTV cameras across Britain could be useless as evidence in court because most operators are failing to abide by the law, a new watchdog has warned.
Defence lawyers could exploit technicalities to "drive a coach and horses" through prosecution cases, allowing criminals to escape justice simply because camera tapes are not stored securely or monitoring screens are visible to the public.
The warnings will fuel deepening concerns over explosion in use of CCTV cameras in recent years - and doubts over whether the millions of surveillance systems really make Britain a safer place, as is often claimed.
The UK has more cameras per head of population than anywhere else in the world with city residents now typically filmed up to 300 times a day.
Scroll down for more
Illegal and useless: Most footage obtained from cameras like these cannot be used as evidence
Latest versions include talking CCTV systems where operators can shout warnings at criminals and yobs, and flying police spy drones hovering above our cities.
But the head of the new CameraWatch advisory body claimed yesterday only a small minority of Britain's 4.2million surveillance cameras currently comply with the law.
Gordon Ferrie, a former senior police officer and head of security at the Royal Bank of Scotland who chairs the new group, said:
"Our research shows that up to 90 per cent of CCTV installations fail to comply with the Information Commissioner's UK CCTV code of practice, and many installations are operated illegally."
The failings have "profound implications", he added, not least for police and prosecutors trying to bring criminals to justice.
Mr Ferrie said defence lawyers "could drive a horse and cart" through most CCTV evidence presented in court, adding: "We do not want to get into a situation where every image is challenged in court.
"We are in favour of close circuit television. It's as good as having DNA. There is nothing better than actually seeing someone commit the crime.
"All we are asking is that the images that are taken are compliant with the Data Protection Act."
According to CameraWatch the most common error is failing to store camera tapes securely once they have been filmed, in breach of laws stating that imagery must be treated in the same way as confidential personal information.
Other frequent problems include wrongly sited monitoring screens which can be seen by members of the public - again breaching strict regulations - or failing to register a system under the Data Protection Act.
With millions of cameras now operated by private businesses or individuals, local authorities, housing associations and police forces, CameraWatch is calling for a major effort to improve standards to prevent major criminal trials collapsing.
Senior police officers in England have already expressed similar fears over the issue, although the matter has yet to be tested in a UK court.
CCTV is now seen by police as an indispensable crime-fighting tool, but there are signs of a growing backlash against the vast number of cameras now watching the UK population, including from the police themselves.
Last week Ian Readhead, Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire, questioned why CCTV systems were being installed in low-crime areas such as rural villages at huge expense, adding:
'Are we really moving towards an Orwellian situation where cameras are at every street corner?
"I really don't think that's the kind of country that I want to live in."
The Home Office has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on CCTV systems over the past decade, and is shortly to publish a major review into how effective the technology is in fighting crime.
One highly embarrassing study commissioned by the department two years ago found that systems do little or nothing to cut crime levels.
Researchers examined 14 separate schemes in various settings across the UK but only one - covering a series of car parks - could be credited with cutting crime.
Street crime such as drunken violence was barely affected in most cases, and there was evidence that other crimes were simply moved to other areas not covered by cameras.
Reader views (9)
A crime has been commited in your home and the servillance camera recorded the incident.
The intruders, when they were leaving another camera recorded the intruders leaving, they were indentify as Jim and Tim. The police was notified about the incident.
Jim and Tim were pick up by the police. The evidence is there that these two persons commited a crime.
Will the law charge these two persons for breaking an entering.
These two persons violated your privacy,you could have been killed.
Cameras in public places is a very good. If you don't have anything to hide then you don't have to worry.
I write this because thief broke into my house, tied up my hands behind my back a taped my mouth and feet, so afraid was I that up to know I don't sleep well.
The sevillance cameras are a good weapon for the police.
This happened on the 28/02/2011
Roy,Working,Trinidad 23/07/2011 9:29 PM
- Roy Douglas, Marabella, Trinidad and Tobago, WI., 24/07/2011 02:46
Report abuse
CCTV cameras in public places are an attack on our privacy and our freedom. As a law abiding citizen I should be entitled to walk the streets without having my image recorded, stored and transferred to the police. This isn't something that should be subject to the ballot box, it is above that. It is a foundation stone within a democratic society. These cameras do not reduce crime and only rarely provide any assistance with criminal prosecutions. But even if they did, this isn't sufficient reason to sacrifice our privacy to the law and order altar. A person's personal space in the public realm is sacred. The State cannot be trusted to retain such images securely and tokenistic privacy policies provide no reassurance. The pathetic addage "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has the mark of fascism about it. We should always fear the State and strive to ensure that we protect what rights, freedoms and safeguards we have left. Reclaim our streets and tear down these wretched cameras!
- adam bonner, meroo meadow, australia, 15/03/2011 10:42
Report abuse
Only 1 of the statististics in this report are correct and that is the 10,584. Other than that all the information is supposition and not based in fact. As I work in the Local Authority CCTV Industry my own true statistics prove that CCTV is very useful in assisting the reduction in crime and disorder as well as putting many incidents to an immediate stop at the time of occurrance. Police have, Nationally, been slow to respond to the usefulness of CCTV as evidence but are making huge leaps forward to catch up. The biggest problem is that of the 15 million CCTV cameras deployed across this country, only 10% are owned and operaterd by Public Authorities. This 10% are not the ones that give the statistics used to demonstrate the usefulness of the images. Most of the cases where the images have proved successful do not get included in publicly published documents or are even made known to the public. The wrong questions are being asked of the wrong agencies. Ask the courts how many cases did the defendant plead guilty due to cctv images being made available and you start to understand just how effective Public Authority CCTV images are. These cameras have saved lives and will continue to do so to the benefit of the public. They do not impose on peoples privacy and can not be used to collect information as to spending habits etc. It would be nice for the 22,000 CCTV operators (Licensed) to be told how good a job they are doing rather than continually knocked back by media
- Kevin White, London United Kingdom, 06/10/2009 10:24
Report abuse
I think CCTV is good and bad in some ways. I have recently had my car driven into...On a shared drive by a drunk driver who then didn't stop and continued to drive off (At 2.30 in the morning) Luckily my partner was still awake. I contacted the police who then a week later told me they didn't see and record of the car at all, driving down a main road in view of several council CCTV cameras. Does anyone have any advice about weather I can do anything. I definitely not paying for someone else's carelessness.
Any advice?
- Rachael, Southsea England, 27/04/2009 23:54
Report abuse
I think CCTV cameras are a good idea for catching criminals, not necessarily preventing crime. Nothing really does prevent crime. For eg. States in America with the death penalty have equal numbers of murder cases, sometimes more than states without the death penalty.
I think we should be more concerned as to what is deemed "criminal activity" by the law and government.
- Claire Bywalec, Perth, Scotland., 19/03/2009 21:56
Report abuse
No body has the right to take pictures or videos of you without your consent. Video images can possibly be manipulated in the computer and may be used to your detriment if in the wrong hands.
God created us to be free and not watched by peeping Toms
J Montesin
- Joe Montesin, Sliema Malta, 27/01/2009 01:05
Report abuse
I work for a security firm that's contracted to work in a distribution centre. In this job I have to do body, locker and car searches with a head camera on my head. Am I infringing anyone's human rights or breaking any laws?
- John, liverpool, 24/07/2008 10:18
Report abuse
The CCTV cameras which are commonly employed everywhere cannot SAVE the footage! They are only useful for monitoring purposes and as such are pratically useless.
One or two digital stills cameas in an area would capture clear images of the camera scene, but it will take some time for the penny to drop with council and transport officials who buy hardware at the taxpayer's expense without bothering to check whether it has any practical value.
If you can't capture clear quality images then there is no point in installing a CCTV system.
- Anon, London, 31/12/2007 20:48
Report abuse
If they spent more money on fewer cameras in crime rich areas those cameras could provide better imagery so that we could actually see the faces of the criminals and not just that they are a bloke in jeans with a dark jacket on and a fuzzy head.
- Isabel, Woking, England, 31/12/2007 19:48
Report abuse
