Uberveillance in Practice

Videos 1 and 2 I showed - “watching” pavements

Some amazing things can happen when you watch concrete slabs! Especially when humans and machines are involved. 12 million + views later, CCTV on pavement? Umm… looks like it!

Date of Event: Tuesday, May 25th 2021

Time of Event: 9:30 AM — 1:00 PM

Fraser Sampson, The Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner

Paul Mackie, Compliance Director at CameraWatch

Professor Katina Michael, Professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering at Arizona State University

Professor Patrick Watson, Professor in Criminology at Wilfrid Laurier University

20-minute presentation on Uberveillance in practice, you can also present on one of the following points :

• What legislative initiatives should be considered to effectively regulate the use of video surveillance technology?

• How has the issue of public trust in video surveillance technology changed as a result of the pandemic?

• How can the public sector more effectively utilise video surveillance technology to prevent crime and other unwanted behaviour?

• How can public trust in the use of video surveillance be improved?

• How does the increasing use of new technologies like drones equipped with video surveillance technology and facial recognition technologies affect the use of video technology, the public’s attitudes towards it and our existing regulatory framework?

• What privacy issues does the use of surveillance technology raise, is it getting worse, and what can be done to ensure practice that helps to reduce crime while protecting civil liberties?

The programme can be found here

I will also participate in a 30-minute open floor discussion, alongside other panel speakers, including Fraser Sampson, The Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner.

From the official PublicPolicyXChange web site:

Overview

For police officers, CCTV helps to reduce and solve crime, whilst for others they are a violation of our privacy and human rights. With new technologies such as facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and drones being incorporated in increasingly sophisticated cameras, and some nations using CCTV extensively to enforce social distancing during Covid, it is increasingly important to think about when it is right to install CCTV and the rules that govern them.

In 2017, The Surveillance Camera Commissioner (SCC) launched the National Surveillance Camera Strategy, which created a more coordinated framework to address the increasing challenges, complexities and demands facing surveillance policy. In 2013, the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice was established built on 12 guiding principles that the police and local authorities must comply with before the deployment of any surveillance camera system, including establishing a legitimate aim and a pressing need. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 also set limits on the use of CCTV, not only for public authorities but also domestic use. The Information Commission’s Office (ICO) argues the rules are such that if a domestic user is capturing video outside of their premises, they should be able to provide reasonable grounds for why capturing the images is more important than invading the privacy of your neighbours and passers-by. Both GDPR and the 2018 act give data subjects rights to access, erasure, and to object to capture in the future. In-house use of CCTV isn’t without limitation either, and can be challenged if its use amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – this is particularly relevant to victims of domestic abuse.

Despite this legislative framework, critics argue that many loopholes exist within the system, and the fast paced development of technology is leaving the law behind. The SCC has stated that whilst “the smallest of parish councils in England and Wales” must adhere to the PoFA, at the same time Transport for London, the Highways Agency, rail franchises and more are not included. Police forces are also encouraged to designate an officer responsible for compliance within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), however it is not mandated. Police forces face a tension between public expectations that crime will be caught on a camera somewhere, and citizens’ rights and the increasing use of facial recognition to help identify suspects. 

Between 2016 and 2019 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) conducted a total of 10 test deployments, trialling live facial recognition (LFR) technology during policing operations, with research conducted by Professor Pete Fussey and Dr. Daragh Murray concluding that 1) LFR deployments may not be regarded as ‘necessary in a democratic society’ if challenged before the courts, and 2) that they could exacerbate issues of bias and discrimination and exaggerate gender disparities that are familiar with other forms of potentially discriminatory policing practices. The 2019 Bridges case also highlighted the use of automated facial recognition software, where cameras analysed thousands of faces in a crowd, and were claimed by Liberty to be a breach of human rights and civil liberties. Before the police consider the expansion of greater forms of surveillance it is perhaps crucial to explore public awareness and consent.

The increasing use of CCTV armed drones, by both police and individuals, has also created new questions as to the status of those caught on camera during their flight. A major concern is that they could be used to record images of other people without their consent and have the potential for “collateral intrusion” by recording images of individuals unnecessarily. While any covert use of drones by the police requires authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), the numerous media reports of police use of drones recording people in potential breach of social distancing last summer, suggests this is increasingly problematic. 

This symposium provides an opportunity to understand and discuss the future of video surveillance systems. The symposium will help local authorities, police forces, Police and Crime Commissioners, community safety teams, CCTV system operators and other key stakeholders discover how to uphold civil liberties and individual freedoms, whilst fulfilling video surveillance systems’ true potential as an effective component of crime reduction and property protection.

Program

• Analyse the existing legislative framework regulating the use of video surveillance, including the National Surveillance Camera Strategy and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

• Examine the ethical considerations of video surveillance systems and its potential to exacerbate racial tensions and public trust

• Assess the economic impacts of compliance with current regulation

• Review methods of improving public trust in video surveillance systems

• Evaluate the utility of video surveillance systems as a form of crime prevention, property protections and public safety

• Reflect on how to best meet the needs of local communities by using video surveillance systems

• Discuss next steps in regulating the use of drones equipped with video surveillance technology by both police and individuals

• Analyse the use of facial recognition technology in video surveillance an consider its impact on discrimination and public trust

Who Should Attend?

• Local authoritites

• Video Surveillance System and IT Operations

• Police and Crime Commissioners

• Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

• Police Service, Police Authorities and Fire Services

• Crime Prevention Officers

• Design Consultants

• Architectural Liaison Officers

• Planning Authorities

• Town Centre Managers

• Community Safety Teams

• Emergency Planning Officers

• Security Industry

• Surveillance System Manufacturers and Suppliers

• Licensing Authorities

• Neighbourhood Policing Teams

• Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinators

• Housing Officers and Housing Associations

• Drug and Alcohol Action Teams

• Youth Offending Teams

• Probation Officers

• Community Support Officers

• Trading Standards Officers

• Children and Youth Services

• Domestic Violence Co-ordinators

• Sure Start, Children's Trusts and Children's Centres

• Victim Support Representatives

• Neighbourhood Renewal Teams

• Teachers and Head Teachers

• Neighbourhood Wardens and Co-ordinators

• Criminal Justice Practitioners

• Local Authority Officers and Councillors

• Central Government Departments and Agencies

• Equality and Diversity Practitioners

• Third Sector Practitioners

Citation: Fraser Sampson, Paul Mackie, Patrick Watson, Katina Michael, 25 May 2021, The Future of CCTV: Meeting Complex Demands and Improving Public Trust in Video Surveillance Technology, PublicPolicyeXchange, https://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/event.php?eventUID=LE25-PPE