Government lets CCTV watchdog off the leash

The Government has appointed a regulator to oversee the use of CCTV technology amidst growing concerns about surveillance and the effectiveness of the cameras. A minister said he hoped the appointment would "address public concern" about CCTV use. Forensic Science Regulator Andrew Rennison will become the interim CCTV …

[Scott 19]

Again

another useless Quango that i miss out on, i so want one of these jobs you have no powers to do anything about CCTV except give people a phone number but get paid for it. Nice work if you can get it, anyone know the correct way to shake hands in these job interviews?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forensic Science Regulator??

So the public concern was that CCTV wasn't good enough for Forensic science??? Surely they should have hired a privacy or human rights lawyer!

Their choice of person does not exactly instil a sense of confidence. More a sort of deja-view train crash feeling.

Look, you put a social misfit in charge of Anti-Social Behavior (orders) and he breaks up society and puts the police in the middle of every little neighbour dispute.

You put a scare old woman in charge of crime and everyone is in prison by default. No crime goes unpunished, anyone will do, just as long as they're men.

Now a 'forensic science regulator' is placed in charge of CCTV, and he'll just define standards that require better lighting of CCTV, more mega pixels, better backups of the data for longer, easier access with less proof, and central database storage... he will do exactly what forensic scientists want from something and make a more intrusive, more oppressive CCTV system.

Another train crash.

[Dan 10]

Fair point you have...

I think it's made even worse by the usual non-survey:

"Home Office research published in 2005 showed that over 80% of respondents supported the use of CCTV to deal with crime in their neighbourhood. A similar high level of confidence is reflected in the IPSOS MORI poll conducted last year and which we will be publishing shortly," he said.

Er, yeah, no sh*t Sherlock. What if you rephrased the question to include things like "We'll not be bothered to solve many crimes using it, but YOU will remain on film for as long as we have the storage space to keep it, and you're bound to do something we don't like...."

Yet more gov spin and whitewash.

[Jacqui Smith's DVD Collection!]

More jobs for the boys

How much will he be paid to sit on his arse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another toothless...

...quango for the Tories to scrap then...

[dervheid]

And just what makes you think...

that the Tories will scrap this one? (We can but hope, however)

Not that I would EVER accuse the Tories of doing anything like using it as another set of nice cushy jobs for their 'mates' to do, no Siree Bob.

[RPF]

This just after...

...admitting that CCTV is useless for crime-prevention?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Probably toothless

"It is … important that we address public concern..."

Which can mean either fix the problem the public is concerned about, or appoint someone to 'educate' said proletariat. I fear it will be the latter. After all, is there any government-appointed watchdog who would actually have the explicit or political powers to denounce government policy?

[Paul 4]

Reasure the public?

So do the same thing as they have done with ID cards, DNA, speed cameras etc... Issue a statment about once every three months saying "your all being very silly, now calm down. CCTV is good." Flying in the face of all evidence and public oppinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this guy going to oversee ANPR

and the vehicle movements database?

Or will that be left to ACPO, a private company?

[Stratman]

At last

A central clearing house for all the video clips soon to be seen on "Britain's Chavviest Towns" and other televisual feasts. I for one am tired of seeing the same twats puking in the same gutters and getting clubbed by the same coppers.

Looking forward to some BATFA standard stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

IPSOS MORI

I worked for them once.

Whether it's double glazing sales contact gathering masquerading as a benign survey about home insulation, or pre-loaded questionnaires about home security twisted to suit the government's desired angle of spin, I would say every single cold poll I took part in was designed solely to suit the client's ends.

Put simply: He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof or shut down, not another oversight Quango.

How about a study to check the effectiveness of each CCTV installation at reducing significant lawless behaviour, and value for money, over conventional methods, then closing all the useless ones. That would sure concentrate the operators minds on providing a valuable service and not abusing their position!

[Graham Marsden]

Home Office research published in 2005...

"...showed that over 80% of respondents supported the use of CCTV to deal with crime in their neighbourhood."

Did they?

From http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

"Finally, although the public for the most part did not feel safer, and despite their perceiving

CCTV as less effective than they initially thought, they were still predominantly in favour of

its use. Even though they concluded that it did not reduce crime, there was no pressure to

have it removed, and there were no major concerns, once people had experienced CCTV,

about infringement of civil liberties."

That sounds like less than a ringing endorsement to me. Also look at Appendix A which is rather critical of the methodology and the lack of control groups for much of the data.

And from the conclusions: "Assessed on the evidence presented in this report, CCTV cannot be deemed a success. It has cost a lot of money and it has not produced the anticipated benefits"

Basically (unsurprisingly) the Home Office has spun the results to give the answers they want.

[OG 1]

No Problem

I don't see any problem with more cctv. I won't be happy untill I see one on at least every other lamp post. They are getting cheaper and better all the time.

I tried putting a tin foil hat on my head long ago,, but it didn't fit ;-)

[Dave 120]

Private v Public

Since my local Tescos has more CCTV cameras in one store than the police has in the whole city centre why do we keep hearing this government big brother bollocks?

There is such a lack of factual reporting and proper research on this issue its incredibly difficult to get enough information to come to any conclusions.

If anyone has links to some peer reviewed research I'd love to see them.

[Anonymous Coward]

A Regulator Who Can't Regulate?

"The regulator's role will be based on advice rather than intervention, though. "While the Interim CCTV Regulator will not have responsibility for deciding whether individual cameras are appropriately sited or how they are used, he will be able to help explain to the public how they can complain about intrusive or ineffective CCTV placement or usage," said Hanson."

So he's not a "regulator", but an advisor to the government (like Professor Nutt?), and will also fob the public off when they want to complain.

And the government think we're fooled by this?

[dervheid]

"And the government think we're fooled by this?"

No, they don't think WE will, but they're probably right in thinking that the sheeple will be placated by this though.