WRITTEN ON May 31st, 2007 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Foundation of Trust, What do we want?
It seems CCTV cameras are illegal as well as immoral. There’s a new outfit called Camerawatch – not anti anti-CCTV outfit but merely pressing for compliance to the law. And they may have a big job on their hands. From The Times
Nearly all cameras illegal, says watchdog Melanie Reid
We are living in the surveillance age but 90 per cent of Britain’s 14.2 million closed-circuit television cameras may be failing to comply with the law.
A new national advisory body for the industry, CameraWatch, which has the backing of the police and the Information Commissioner’s Office, claimed yesterday that the vast majority of CCTV is used incorrectly and could potentially be inadmissable in court.
The organisation’s chairman, Gordon Ferrie, the international head of security for RBS and a former director of the fraud squad in Strathclyde, said that the dangers were pressing given the growth in the industry.
“Our research shows that up to 90 per cent of CCTV installations fail to comply with the Information Commissioner’s UK CCTV code of practice, and many installations are operated illegally. That has profound implications for the reputation of the CCTV and camera surveillance industry and all concerned with it.” …
It’s not yet clear whether they think CCTV makes for the sort of country we really want to live in. But if they brings facts and clarity to this benighted topic then that serves us all well. * Thanks Jane (via FIPR list)
Yes, too many relationships with “authority” have become very one-sided and are now organised for the convenience of “authority.”
I’m astonished at the lack of public reaction; although any reaction seems fairly pointless when no mainstream political party offers any alternative. (Perhaps that’s why more people are now considering the “extreme” candidates?)
eg. We have only one supermarket within easy reach. About twice a month, the bill is wrong because something has been charged at a higher price than was shown on their shelves: These “mistakes” are always in their favour: Sometimes a few tens of pence; sometimes a few pounds.
If you spot these “mistakes,” the duty manager eventually agrees to refund the amount – only the amount. This usually takes 20 to 30 minutes and you’re made to feel like a troublemaker.
“Trading Standards,” now hiding behind “Consumer Direct” have no interest in this persistent, reckless overcharging or in (deliberately?) misleading shelf signs. These days they seem much more interested in things like tricking small shops to sell alcohol to the under-age children they pay to pose as customers. (Incitement??)
However, while in a long supermarket queue last week, I notice a long sign about “Civil Restitution”:
Apparently this errant supermarket has joined a retailers’ club which seeks to recover “all costs” from “offenders” – in addition to and separate from any criminal action or penalties:
These “costs” include: A proportion of their security staffing costs; CCTV system costs and the costs of any CCTV copies; management costs; staff costs; correspondence and copying costs; etc. etc.
Obviously, while not condoning theft or other criminal activities; why the large imbalance in treatment between the repeated reckless “mistakes” by the supermarket and any “mistakes” by its customers? Why are we not more surprised?
Note. All supermarkets make “mistakes”: Some handle them better than others.