Public CCTV surveillance has been shown not to be particularly effective in preventing violent, or drunken street crime or terrorism. Studies have generally accepted that there can be a reduction or displacement of crimes against property, which is why many local shopkeepers tend to support such schemes.
However:
Richmond Informer Friday March 17th 2006A case of Can't Cope TV
Cops Say they havn't got time to analyse video of burgalry
By Natalie Arsalane
A Teddington shopkeeper who was burgled has criticised the police after they refused to check CCTV footage - because they did not have enough man-power
Nigel Dawes' shop - Teddington Station Garden Centre - was burgled on February 26.
Thieves stole £400 worth of plants from the store, in Station Road, despite a council-run CCTV camera being yards from the shop.
When Mr Dawes contacted the police, he was told that because he did not know the specific time the theft took place, they could not check the film.
He then asked if he could check the tape himself, but Richmond Council would not allow him.
What is the point of such a public CCTV surveillance system if does not deter criminals and if nobody checks the footage ?
Mr Dawes said he was shocked by the reaction he received from officers and Richmond Council."The burglary must have happened on Sunday evening, so it would not take that long to look at eight hours of footage and see if anyone is on the camera," he said.
"The culprits were not taking small items - we're talking about £400 worth of plants - so I'm sure the film must show something.
"I was more than willing to look at the footage myself as they didn't have time but they told me that was not possible. It's a disgrace."
A spokeswoman for Richmond Police said it would take a long time to go through 15 hours of tape.
Have they really not yet worked out how to use the fast forward facility on a video player ?
"Police policy for Richmond borough is being reviewed regarding appropriate use of police resources to view CCTV footage, of a length over 30 minute," she said
Is this Metropolitan Police policy really being reviewed at the moment, or is it always "under review", especially when a local newspaper reporter is asking awkward questions ?
"If it can be positively stated that the subject is on tape and a reasonable time scale given, then the footage will be seized and viewed,
Note the Police jargon here - "the footage will be seized"
This is a Local Government taxpayer funded, CCTV street camera system, not an illicit pornographic video studio - why is it "seized" rather than "routinely requested" ?
What happened to "policing by consent of the local community" ?
"It is not operationally possible to view all CCTV footage, therefore, viewing importance is weighed against the realistic chance of obtaining images of the suspect."
A spokesman for Richmond Police said: "Residents have no rights to look at data we have recorded of a crime being committed.
"There are various reasons for this, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Criminal Evidence Act."
So why should we waste more money on such CCTV surveillance systems ? We obviously already have far more than we can cope with.
Why should there continue to be a "post code"lottery" patchwork of different and unequal CCTV surveillance practices. within London and the rest of the United Kingdom ?
UPDATE:
Richmond Council appear to have an incredibly bureaucratic and very intrusive "Subject access request form" (.pdf) for CCTV images, which asks for all sorts of irrelevant personal data
Title (tick box as appropriate) Mr Mrs Miss Ms
Other title (e.g. Dr., Rev., etc.)
Surname/family name
First names
Maiden name/former names
Sex (tick box) Male Female
Height
Date of Birth
Place of Birth Town County
Your Current Home Address (to which we will reply)
Post Code
A telephone number will be helpful in case you need to be contacted.
Tel. No.
If you have lived at the above address for less than 10 years, please give your previous addresses for the period:
Previous address(es)
Dates of occupancy From: To:
Dates of occupancy From: To:
What is the justification for previous names and addresses or your sex. height or place and date of birth ??
There is also the risk of them losing not one but two of your "official" identity documents.
To help establish your identity your application must be accompanied by TWO official documents that between them clearly show your name, date of birth and current address.For example: a birth/adoption certificate, driving licence, medical card, passport or other official document that shows your name and address.
Also a recent, full face photograph of yourself.
Failure to provide this proof of identity may delay your application.
The requirement for a recent, full face photograph means that even a Passport or the proposed National Identity Card will not be sufficient, since that photo could be up to 10 years old.
This "proof of identity" is not far short of the ID Card or Passport application and enrolment process, and, in itelf, contravenes the Third Principle of Data Protection:
3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.
on a form which quotes the Data Protection Act 1998 !
N.B. This is not the same as filling in their "Access to CCTV image request form" (.pdf)
In this case, they will probably wait the statutory 41 days, to reply, ask the shopkeeper for the maximum £10 fee, and then, some indeterminate time there after, tell him that they have already deleted it after 30 days since February 26th.
This fact that the CCTV tape could already have been erased or overwritten, will also stymie any Police investigation request under Section 29 of the DPA.
They would soon mannage to read the CCTV footage if it had a number plate on it.
If the shopkeeper puts in an FOI request, the police would be obliged to spend up to £450 in staff time (i.e. up to 18 hours) in finding the relevant information.
@ FOI Officer - they would then, presumably refuse to hand over the CCTV tape to him under the vast range of Exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act e.g.
They'd read the CCTV footage if t had a number plate on it - absoultely they would! Remember when spy cameras first started to appear? Councils up and down the land were quick to state that these cameras were to tackle serious street crime. They were not there to nab someone throwing down a fag end or parking on double yellow lines. Read the document from Richmond (link in main post) and you'll see that one of their prime purposes is traffic enforcement, for which read parking offences. I guess because the cameras are so useless at dealing with real crime the councils have to justify them somehow. Using them to rake in parking fines now seems to be the big idea.
Just been looking at the Subject Access Request from Richmond. It's so far over the top that it's out of sight! This must be someone taking the p..., surely.
Is it worth reporting them to the DPC for this outrageous infringement of data protection principles?
I know the DPC is generally a waste of space and is probably a laughing stock in local government, national government and police circles, but maybe they might just take up this case.
This seems to be a common problem http://www.sudburytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=850&ArticleID=1387601
The National Security exemption would not apply, as no national security issues would arise. The personal data exemption would only apply if another person was clearly identifiable on the footage, and to disclose their personal information would be a breach of the principles. It would be easy to make a case for how it would not breach the principles to disclose the identity of the offender. All of the other exemptions are subject to a test of the public interest. The police will continue to use such exemptions unless they are challenged. No matter how cumbersome the appeals process is, it should be used and tested.
@ FOI officer - there may be nothing on the CCTV tape at all - the camera could have been pointing the other way at the relevant time of the burglary.
"The National Security exemption would not apply, as no national security issues would arise."
It depends on what is, and what is not, within the potential field of view of the CCTV camera.
The point is, the police cannot reject requests for CCTV footage in the terms described (i.e. we're too busy). The FOI Act prevents this. And I maintain that any police force that tries the National Security exemption for CCTV footage in this situation is going to be on very unsafe ground. If they were to say it, they should be challenged. Decisions made under FOI are not final - they can be overturned by the Commissioner (unlikely), by the Tribunal (likely) or even the courts (who knows?). The thing to do in this circumstance is to make an FOI request and force them to respond properly.
@ FOI Officer - If you send in a request for an arbitarary bit of CCTV footage, under the Freedom of Information Act, about an incident which you yourself are not directly involved in, could it not also be rejected out of hand as a "vexatious request" under Section 14 of the FOIA ?
We are still waiting, after nearly a whole year for Decision from the Information Commissioner about a Freedom of Information Act request, so you must forgive our utter scepticism about how effective such an approach might be.
According to The Register, the Information Commissioner's Office is due to to issue new guidance on CCTV sometime this summer.
Any police force who rejected a request as vexatious solely because the applicant was not involved in the footage would be wildly off the mark. In my opinion as a professional FOI Officer, it would be impossible for them to say so, and eventually, the Commissioner would agree.
@ FOI Officer - the Information Commissioner was urging public authorities to make more use of Section 14 "vexatious requests" as an alternative to the idea of increasing the fees charged for FOIA requests.
See the uncorrected Oral Evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee on 14th March 2006
Unlike a £10 Data Protection Act Subject Data Access request, the police or the local authority or the Community Safety Camera Partnership or whoever is legally operating the CCTV cameras, would be entiled to charge a much higher fee for supplying CCTV under an FOIA request.
Remember that under the DPA, you are not allowed to see details of people's faces other than your own, and so there is usually £500 worth of Avid video editing to be done, pixellating out everyone else's face.
If an FOIA request for CCTV footage is not refused for being "vexatious" or for containing "personal details", then it may well be only available on payment of a fee which covers this video editing censorship.
It might be interesting to try to ask for, say, the CCTV footage from Stockwell Tube station when Jean Charles de Menezes was shot - what do you tthink the chances are of it being released under an FOIA request ?
A request for the De Menezes footage would be relatively easy to reject - they could refuse using Section 30 (ongoing investigations). In general, public authorities have to spend up to £450 of staff time (£600 for central government) in finding and collating information. The police would have to spend up to £450 of staff time (roughly translated to 18 hours) in finding and editing the information without making a charge. Therefore, a large fee should not necessarily be payable. Besides, under the IC's own guidance, it might not be necessary to pixellate the images of other people because the Commissioner's own view of what constitutes personal data in CCTV footage is much more limited than it used to be.
The Commissioner's evidence to the Select Committee is something of a red herring. Central Government are thinking of altering the fees structure for FOI because of the supposed burden of dealing with voluminous requests. One often quoted example was the request for the number of windows at the HQ of the Department for Education and Skills. The IC was simply pointing out that you don't need better charges to deal with that kind of request, just a reasonable use of Section 14. I repeat, asking for evidence relating to a crime is not in itself vexatious, it's a perfectly sensible request which I don't believe could be rejected as vexatious.
@ FOI Officer - FOIA requests to the Metropolitan Police Service have their own Kafkauesque quality.
If, like we did, you send in an FOIA request to the central Metropolitan Police Service, even for something which should be easy to find and disclose, e.g. how many people were arrested for are particular offence during a particular time period, then you run into the fact that the MPS is really made up of 34 Borough Command Units, so if a query goes out to each BCU, and it takes more than half an hour each, even for them to say "no information on this in our patch", you are approaching the £450 / 18 man hour limit for an FOIA request.
We were told that even breaking the request down into separate Boroughs, and shorter time periods, would likely result in it being treated as a "camapaign" and therefore "vexatious".
This is sort of thing is likely to be repeated around the country when various Police forces are merged into larger units, under the controversial Police and Justice Bill now being rubber stamped through Parliament.