British home office to grab more CCTV power

[buckthesystem]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/22/cctv_powers/

Home Office to grab for more CCTV power

By Mark Ballard

Published Wednesday 22nd November 2006 13:20 GMT

The police and Home Office are to press for regulatory powers that will insist that every one of the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain is upgraded so it can be deputised to gather police evidence and provide a vehicle for emerging technologies that will automatically identify people and detect if they are doing anything suspicious.

The CCTV strategy for crime reduction, which is expected to be published in December after a joint review by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, is also expected to be critical of the way the law governing the use of CCTV has been managed by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Graeme Gerrard, joint-director of the review and deputy chief constable at Cheshire Constabulary, said: "We say there's a need for proper regulation of CCTV to protect civil rights and to see we are not wasting everyone's time and money."

His recommendations will include powers of inspection to determine if CCTV systems are good enough for their recordings to be commandeered for use as police evidence. Public and private operators would be obliged to upgrade their systems if the police thought they were not good enough.

"CCTV, in terms of assisting the police, has been very important. It's now one of the first things we check in most forms of criminality," Gerrard said, but added: "From a police perspective we have been concerned for some time with the quality of the CCTV [images] presented to us."

"The reason is that CCTV systems are not regulated and inspected. They should be fit for purpose to comply with the Data Protection Act. But that's not being regulated at the moment, which is wasting police time and public money.

"The Information Commissioner has responsibility but doesn't do it. We are certainly recommending someone does it."

The ICO has repeatedly asked the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) for powers of inspection so it can check that people's CCTV systems are being used properly - not just so that they are fit for the purpose of crime detection, but also that they are not intruding on people's privacy. But the DCA had refused, The Register has learned.

Even if the ICO was given the power to inspect people's CCTV installations, it could not afford to do the work. Neither is the government willing to foot the bill of upgrading the many public CCTV networks using old technology.

Moreover, public funding would not fund private CCTV operators, which Gerrard said are more often found by the police to be inadequate when they turn to them for evidence.

So the CCTV review will suggest some sort of self-funding regime. This could mean that CCTV operators might have to pay a higher registration fee than the yearly

[buckthesystem]

For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth;

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

CCTV technology has been with us for a long, long time.

Blessings, H.

I really hope I have misread you and you are not comparing and likening this vile government surveillance of its own citizens and their villifying an entire population to God knowing everything we do (God doesn't even need millions of CCTV cameras to keep an eye on his flock). If I have got what you are saying wrong, I apologise unreservedly.

No CCTV has not been with us for a long time. Not here, it hasn't, anyway. And it might have been everywhere in UK for the past 10 years or so (I wouldn't call that a very long time) but it has not been like this: "The police and Home Office are to press for regulatory powers that will insist that every one of the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain is upgraded so it can be deputised to gather police evidence and provide a vehicle for emerging technologies that will automatically identify people and detect if they are doing anything suspicious".

I hope you realise that 4.2 million CCTV cameras equals one camera for every 14 people in the UK, at the rate they are increasing there only needs to be about five times as many and there will be enough for one in every home. Then voila, George Orwell's "1984" "telescreens in every home" comes true, with enough cameras for monitoring you where ever you go throughout the day.

Truly the only sanctuary will be with God. I just hope he comes again soon before world governments turn technology against everyone.

Blessings and Grace,

BTS.

[buckthesystem]

KatyAnn, quote: "Do some research on the world wide push to get HDTV in every home in the world. It is mandatory in the U.S by 2008. HDTV is a computerized TV.

Now why would there be World conferences on this and why would our Congress pass a law that all U.S. citizens must have HDTV?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know HDTV is basically an untested form of entertainment and information media that could link computer, Ipod, television, radio etc. Basically it is "digital TV" that is not even due to be complete until 2010. Then you would need a digital set top box to fully utilise it. Do you mean by "mandatory in the US..." that if you don't have it by 2008, there will be no alternative to it, so if you want to watch TV you'll have to get a "decoder"?

I have read that it being "pushed" in America and people are practically being "bullied" into getting it in UK and I presume that this is happening in all EU countries as well. However, this is far from the entire world. I know of many households in NZ who do not have a telephone, let alone a TV. I don't even know if it will be available here. And there are many places throughout the world where life is far too basic to even consider that.

Of course I could be, and probably am, totally wrong about this and I will feel an absolute fool if all of a sudden I find out about it all and it is all too late. I will do some research, but it is coming up to midnight and I have to get up early in the morning so it will have to wait.

I do remember about four or five years ago when I worked in a computer repair and electronic shop, one of our customers (an odd sort of fellow but absolutely brilliant in his field), a "boffin" I guess, telling me "so we're watching television sets, there's no reason why soon the television sets couldn't be watching you at the same time". Food for thought I guess.

[CallMeBernard]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/22/cctv_powers/

Home Office to grab for more CCTV power

By Mark Ballard

Published Wednesday 22nd November 2006 13:20 GMT

The police and Home Office are to press for regulatory powers that will insist that every one of the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain is upgraded so it can be deputised to gather police evidence and provide a vehicle for emerging technologies that will automatically identify people and detect if they are doing anything suspicious.

.....................

The reason is that CCTV systems are not regulated and inspected. They should be fit for purpose to comply with the Data Protection Act. But that's not being regulated at the moment, which is wasting police time and public money.

"The Information Commissioner has responsibility but doesn't do it. We are certainly recommending someone does it."

The ICO has repeatedly asked the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) for powers of inspection so it can check that people's CCTV systems are being used properly - not just so that they are fit for the purpose of crime detection, but also that they are not intruding on people's privacy. But the DCA had refused, The Register has learned.

............

So the CCTV review will suggest some sort of self-funding regime. This could mean that CCTV operators might have to pay a higher registration fee than the yearly

[buckthesystem]

CallMeBernard, quote: "I have no problem with this at all. If we are to have CCTVs then indeed they should be well-regulated rather than tacking-on guidelines to existing legislation (such as the Data Protection Act etc). And, if they are to be used by the police, shouldn't they then be of sufficient quality to actually help the police?

I have no problems with the thought of more widespread CCTV in the UK; rather, as someone who works late hours on-call and with a wife who, as a nurse, also comes home at all hours I am rather glad of it.

I prefer the idea of better survelliance and less risk of being attacked- I assume those in horror at the thought are happy for a higher risk of attack?

Secondly- when I vote issues like law & order are important to me. The ability of the police force to make fair use of modern technologies would impress voters like me, providing it was matched to a decrease in crime".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you think that 4.2 million CCTVs is a bit of "overkill"?

The problem seems to be that instead of merely targeting "some" people, or specific areas, they are "blanket monitoring" all people, and thereby turning 100% of the population into suspects!.

It also seems that they do very little to prevent crime (merely cause some potential muggers or vandals to go elsewhere, maybe to where it is darker and there is not so much surveillance) but they do a wonderful job of providing a video record of the crime.

So if you, or your wife, were to be attacked on your way home, you will be provided (after you file an "information request" which may or may not be granted) with (say) a video tape of your wife being attacked, but the attack would still happen. Having a camera to record the event would not make you or your wife any safer.

As for "I assume those in horror at the thought are happy for a higher risk of attack?" There is a risk to everything we do on a daily basis, we cannot possibly eliminate every single risk we are likely to come across and to give up our entire right to privacy is, in my opinion, too high a price to pay for something that does not eliminate risk anyway. Any perception that it does is purely illusionary.

Also, your comment: "When I vote issues like law and order....etc...." means that you have to have a lot of trust in the police, not everybody does. And according to what I have read on the subject CCTVs are NOT matched to a decrease in crime at all.

[CallMeBernard]

CallMeBernard, quote: "I have no problem with this at all. If we are to have CCTVs then indeed they should be well-regulated rather than tacking-on guidelines to existing legislation (such as the Data Protection Act etc). And, if they are to be used by the police, shouldn't they then be of sufficient quality to actually help the police?

I have no problems with the thought of more widespread CCTV in the UK; rather, as someone who works late hours on-call and with a wife who, as a nurse, also comes home at all hours I am rather glad of it.

I prefer the idea of better survelliance and less risk of being attacked- I assume those in horror at the thought are happy for a higher risk of attack?

Secondly- when I vote issues like law & order are important to me. The ability of the police force to make fair use of modern technologies would impress voters like me, providing it was matched to a decrease in crime".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you think that 4.2 million CCTVs is a bit of "overkill"?

The problem seems to be that instead of merely targeting "some" people, or specific areas, they are "blanket monitoring" all people, and thereby turning 100% of the population into suspects!.

It also seems that they do very little to prevent crime (merely cause some potential muggers or vandals to go elsewhere, maybe to where it is darker and there is not so much surveillance) but they do a wonderful job of providing a video record of the crime.

So if you, or your wife, were to be attacked on your way home, you will be provided (after you file an "information request" which may or may not be granted) with (say) a video tape of your wife being attacked, but the attack would still happen. Having a camera to record the event would not make you or your wife any safer.

As for "I assume those in horror at the thought are happy for a higher risk of attack?" There is a risk to everything we do on a daily basis, we cannot possibly eliminate every single risk we are likely to come across and to give up our entire right to privacy is, in my opinion, too high a price to pay for something that does not eliminate risk anyway. Any perception that it does is purely illusionary.

Also, your comment: "When I vote issues like law and order....etc...." means that you have to have a lot of trust in the police, not everybody does. And according to what I have read on the subject CCTVs are NOT matched to a decrease in crime at all.

You're right, the current figures do not show a decrease in certain areas of crime. However, if the CCTVs aren't currently good enough, then is that statistic indicate that either the principle of CCTv itself is a poor one, or that the cameras aren't good enough to do their job properly? The police believe it to be the latter.

Most assaults are carried out by the same individuals time and time again. If improved CCTV can help catch these people then although CCTV won't have stopped the initial assualt it will help to reduce the odds of the assailant doing it again and again and again. With regards to the muggers just moving to other areas... then a) it shows that CCTV is having an effect upon the behaviours of these criminals and b) put CCTV there as well then.

Again, this all dependent upon proper controls and results. If there is no effect upon crime by the CCTV then, as a taxpayer, I would expect the Gov't to transfer my tax money from schemes which don't work to those that do.

[buckthesystem]

Buck,

The Lord is looking down from heaven and is not only watching the outward deeds, He's also seeing the thoughts and intentions behind everything. This gives me great peace, because He knows what I meant even if you can't see it.

Blessings, H.

OK I'll admit, I'm a moron and I don't get what you mean!

It is really frustrating when someone says "you don't understand...." and then doesn't explain it to you.

So, please tell me: What do you mean?

[buckthesystem]

Buck,

The Lord is looking down from heaven and is not only watching the outward deeds, He's also seeing the thoughts and intentions behind everything. This gives me great peace, because He knows what I meant even if you can't see it.

Blessings, H.

OK I'll admit, I'm a moron and I don't get what you mean!

It is really frustrating when someone says "you don't understand...." and then doesn't explain it to you.

So, please tell me: What do you mean?

Buck, with the greatest respect you said that you hoped you had misread what I had written; I took this as 'not understanding', my apologies if I was wrong.

I have neither called you a moron nor implied that you are one.

Blessings, H.

No, really Truster. It is me who should be apologising. I didn't mean to imply that you called me a moron, I came up with that term.

I meant "maybe I'm thick or something, but I genuinely don't know what you mean". What I actually meant in my previous post was that I hoped that you weren't comparing CCTV cameras to God knowing everything that we do. Sorry, I tend to drum out these words so fast that it is sometimes not very clear.

Grace,

BTS.