In the UK, home of twenty percent of the world's CCTV cameras, there is mounting concern about its invasion and lack of regulation. "UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign."
The thought-provoking questions they ask are good ones.
They want to know, for instance, why, if television programming and licensing is so heavily regulated in the UK that the same legislators have never considered licensing for CCTV use and installation? They ask also if the crime statistics touted by CCTV proponents are accurate, or if the criminals are merely being moved down the road to commit crimes elsewhere.
They want to know if civil liberties are being taken into consideration, or if they're ignored and thus violated. They want to know if close circuit television is really worth what they're paying for it. Does it really, for instance, deter crime, provide swift proof of guilt and reduce the number of police officers needed to keep a vigilant watch?
They also ruminate about whether these cameras, once in place, are actually being adequately monitored. If, in fact, there are enough folks doing the watching that quick response can be affected once a crime in action is caught on camera. If that is not the case – if, in fact, as they suspect, one person is paid to view a vast number of monitors at one time, then the cost of the equipment may in fact not be offset by the policing authorities' availability to arrive on the scene in a timely fashion.
There are many concerns for the rights of citizens caught on tape as well. What, for instance, is the policy on who sees what faces and how long those faces remain on tape and where?
To what other uses and outside firms will information garnered by CCTV be handed out? Will racial profiles of neighborhoods, for instance, be sold to commercial marketing companies? If these videos are sold to outside firms what's to keep them from using them in commercial ways that would include the display of photos? Might not an advertising agency, for instance, use the photo of a prominent person such as an entertainer or politician, as part of an advertising campaign? And if so, what about the rights of said entertainer or politician? What about her or his rights to financially gain from the commercial enterprise?
These and many other questions are being asked by concerned British residents who see CCTV as potentially invasive if not regulated, and in the hands of the wrong people.
They also point out zealously that the May 2000 Declaration of Human Rights, delivered in Strasbourg, confirms the illegality of the unregulated and undisclosed use of CCTV. Its Article 8 stated it to be an interference to the applicant's right to expectation of privacy and that this interference was a direct result of its not being regulated by any governing agency.
About the author :David Peters
The thought-provoking questions they ask are good ones.
They want to know, for instance, why, if television programming and licensing is so heavily regulated in the UK that the same legislators have never considered licensing for CCTV use and installation? They ask also if the crime statistics touted by CCTV proponents are accurate, or if the criminals are merely being moved down the road to commit crimes elsewhere.
They want to know if civil liberties are being taken into consideration, or if they're ignored and thus violated. They want to know if close circuit television is really worth what they're paying for it. Does it really, for instance, deter crime, provide swift proof of guilt and reduce the number of police officers needed to keep a vigilant watch?
They also ruminate about whether these cameras, once in place, are actually being adequately monitored. If, in fact, there are enough folks doing the watching that quick response can be affected once a crime in action is caught on camera. If that is not the case – if, in fact, as they suspect, one person is paid to view a vast number of monitors at one time, then the cost of the equipment may in fact not be offset by the policing authorities' availability to arrive on the scene in a timely fashion.
There are many concerns for the rights of citizens caught on tape as well. What, for instance, is the policy on who sees what faces and how long those faces remain on tape and where?
To what other uses and outside firms will information garnered by CCTV be handed out? Will racial profiles of neighborhoods, for instance, be sold to commercial marketing companies? If these videos are sold to outside firms what's to keep them from using them in commercial ways that would include the display of photos? Might not an advertising agency, for instance, use the photo of a prominent person such as an entertainer or politician, as part of an advertising campaign? And if so, what about the rights of said entertainer or politician? What about her or his rights to financially gain from the commercial enterprise?
These and many other questions are being asked by concerned British residents who see CCTV as potentially invasive if not regulated, and in the hands of the wrong people.
They also point out zealously that the May 2000 Declaration of Human Rights, delivered in Strasbourg, confirms the illegality of the unregulated and undisclosed use of CCTV. Its Article 8 stated it to be an interference to the applicant's right to expectation of privacy and that this interference was a direct result of its not being regulated by any governing agency.
About the author :David Peters
Comments