When campaigning against ID Cards and the National Identity Register (NIR) I've frequently used the following as a hypothetical example: Most child abuse happens at home, so why not put CCTV cameras in every home to protect kids? After all, if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

That was intended as an extreme, ridiculous example to counteract the naive "nothing to hide..." brigade. I never, ever expected it to become real. Seems like I was the one being naive.

The Herald reports on a proposal to install CCTV cameras in the homes of drug addicts - all, of course, for the sake of the children.

It needs to be stressed that this is just the idea of one academic - Professor Neil McKeganey of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University - but the fact that it's even being discussed is worrying. I'm sure McKeganey has the best of motives, but his idea is dangerous. As is his argument:

"What price should we put on our privacy? The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases."

Now I know what some people are thinking: these are addicts, they're dangerous to the kids, it won't affect me. That's always the way it starts: target the nasty "them", the decent "us" have nothing to fear.

Drug addicts first, who next? People diagnosed as suffering from depression or borderline personality disorders? Anyone who was themself abused as a child? People who smoke? Or who eat too much and might over-feed their kids?

First they came for the junkies...

Remember, most child abuse happens in the home. So once a sufficient critical mass of people have CCTV installed it will be a "natural" next step to put them in every home. All, of course, for the sake of the children.

Could it ever happen? I'd like to think not, but give Britain's surveillance state mentality I can't rule it out.

I remember when mass DNA testing began - it was only for those in the vicinity of particularly nasty and hard to solve murders. The concept expanded until today we are looking at a de facto national DNA database.

CCTV cameras in the streets were initially introduced in areas where there was a history of trouble. Today they're everywhere, even quiet villages.

Only criminal suspects used to be fingerprinted, today nightclubs are fingerprinting customers. Soon the government want us all fingerprinted and numbered for the NIR.

That's the way it goes with freedom: give an inch and they take it all. To protect our own liberties we must protect those of everyone - including junkies. No private home should ever have state CCTV installed.

If the SNP want to prove that they really are better than Labour, the Scottish Executive should publicly condemn and reject McKeganey's proposal.

Labels: CCTV, civil liberties, privacy, Scotland, uk politics, ukpolitics

I remember a police officer once saying to me: "The last thing the police want is a police state". Whilst it's sometimes hard to believe, in general I think he's right. Sure, there are a few power-hungry individuals, especially at the top. But generally the constant calls from the police for more powers is simply a result of their perspective: they have a job to do and want to make it as easy for themselves as possible. That's understandable and a good reason why the police shouldn't automatically be given every power they ask for.

It's unfortunate that this perspective makes it very difficult for the police to argue in favour of the very civil liberties they should be protecting. Pragmatism usually gets in the way. So it's a pleasant surprise when a senior officer goes on record against the surveillance society.

Ian Readhead, the Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire, has raised fears about the pernicious spread of CCTV, especially in small villages with low crime rates. The example he used was the village of Stockbridge in Hampshire which is on his beat.

Readhead told the BBC:

"I'm really concerned about what happens to the product of these cameras, and what comes next? "If it's in our villages, are we really moving towards an Orwellian situation where cameras are at every street corner? "And I really don't think that's the kind of country that I want to live in."

Readhead also went on to criticise other aspects of the surveillance state such as the indefinite retention of DNA taken from people who have never been charged with a crime.

When a senior police officer publicly uses words like "Orwellian" then we really do have something to worry about.

As Readhead asks: "Just how powerful do you want your police to be?"

CCTV privacy UK politics ukpolitics

Labels: CCTV, privacy

One of the reasons I like the BBC is that I don't always agree with it. I reckon that a truly unbiased news organisation will upset all shades of opinion from time to time. But the recent two part documentary "CCTV: You Are Being Watched" was so one-sided that it could have been scripted by the CCTV makers.

The trails for the programme suggested a serious look at the pros and cons of CCTV and how the UK came to have 20% of the cameras in the entire world.

What we saw was a two hour advert for the surveillance state. Despite the occasional throw-away line about Big Brother the privacy issues were simply brushed aside. The two programmes were simply filled with examples of the wonders of CCTV and how they had solved crimes and saved life. A brief comment from Shami Chakrabarti was all but drowned out in the sea of talking heads from the police and the CCTV industry.

Most worrying of all was the way the programme practically salivated at the idea of future developments in "smart cameras". This could mean CCTV would be able to predict we were about to commit a crime before we did so.

Department of PreCrime?

Now, I don't disapprove of CCTV completely. It certainly helps in solving crime and has some limited use as a deterrent (although even with one camera per 14 people the UK still has plenty of crime). My problem arises when CCTV is all-pervasive, surreptitious and lacking proper controls. Three attributes of the sort of surveillance this programme was advocating.

If we are to use CCTV in public places (eg streets) and private places open to the public (eg shops) then I think the following are essential:

1. The cameras must be overt rather than hidden
   
2. There must be legally binding rules on what can be done with the recorded footage, eg it must be a criminal offence for it to leave the place it was recorded unless requested by the police.
   
3. There must be a legal limit on how long the footage can be kept. Perhaps 90 days unless the police have requested it in regard to an open investigation
   

Of course nowadays it's about more than simple video footage. With the increase in technology such as face recogniton and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) such regulations must apply not just to the raw footage but to the data extracted from such footage that records our whereabouts. And these regulations must be legally enforceable, not just a fluffy "code of conduct".

If we must be monitored then that monitoring must be controlled to protect our privacy. The legal assumption should be that information gained through CCTV must not be kept, exchanged or used unless there is an overwhelming justification for doing so.

Privacy should be the norm, not the exception.

CCTV privacy UK politics ukpolitics

Labels: CCTV, privacy