CCTV: Common sense or just Hot Fuzz?
14 October 2007
To read comments on this article, please click here
See also item on CCTV in Newcastle Emlyn.
Anyone who has seen the film Hot Fuzz will remember the small fictional town of Sandford in Gloucestershire to which police sergeant Nicholas Angel is exiled by the Metropolitan Police force because he is just too good at his job and shows up his colleagues.
Sandford has a Neighborhood Watch Association (NWA) which through it’s CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) system manned by volunteers, holds the town in its claustrophobic grip, viewing everything outside its comfort zone of white, middle aged and middle class with suspicion and hostility.
Sergeant Angel eventually discovers that anyone seen as threatening the rural status quo is being systematically liquidated for what the NWA sees as “the greater good”. The film ends in an exhilerating Hollywood style shootout. (Contains strong language).
Cut to the UK. We have more CCTV cameras (5 million) per head of population (60 million) than any other nation. We have 1% of the World’s population, but 20% of its video cameras and are the most “observed” country in the World.
Cut to Newcastle Emlyn West Wales, population 1,000 where the Town Council is keen to see the installation of 9 CCTV cameras costing £19,000 in order to observe the comings and goings of it’s inhabitants (although the TC would argue, just the unruly ones). Is this a legitimate response to an increase in vandalism and unruly behaviour, or simply overkill given the nature of the problem? Are there local police crime statistics to support the CCTV proposal?
The main dilemma regarding the use of CCTV is explained by Jonathan Bamford, assistant commissioner at the Information Commissioner’s Office:
“It is clear that use of CCTV enjoys a lot of public support and can have benefits such as helping with the detection of crime, however, it can be extremely intrusive, putting law abiding people under surveillance. It is essential that the public is confident that CCTV is being used responsibly and for a proper purpose.”
Some CCTV operators have even begun to include audio in their CCTV use. Some local authorities have begun fitting speakers beside cameras so that operators can admonish wrongdoers observed on camera in real-time.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has warned that CCTV must not be used to record conversations. The Commissioner has proposed a new Code of Practice on the use of CCTV to replace the current code adopted in 2000.
I hope that a similar consultation has been taking place in Newcastle Emlyn amongst shopkeepers and residents about the Town Council’s push for CCTV. A public meeting was held on Friday October 12th about the proposals but it was poorly attended, with less than 10 of the 100 town businesses represented and under 30 people, which includes the whole 10 person Town Council. Absence from that meeting however doesn’t imply consent. A proper survey of opinion should be carried out and the results made public. The enthusiasm of a few people for the surveillance society and the silence of the majority cannot be the basis for the installation of cameras in the town.
Those who see technology as the answer to social problems and who wish to covertly observe the lives of the vast majority of non-rowdy, sober and law-abiding citizens must demonstrate an overwhelming case before being allowed to impose their solutions on the rest of us. They must also explain in detail who will have access to recordings or live broadcasts of the comings and goings of towns people. Will everyone having access to the system be Criminal Records Bureau checked? Who will own the recordings? Wireless video systems such as the one being proposed are also vulnerable to their wireless signal being intercepted by hackers working from laptop computers.
It is up to the CCTV enthusiasts to demonstrate that the electronic surveillance approach is vital to keep law and order on Newcastle Emlyn High Street from the Bridge Street to Emlyn Square (for that is the only area of the town which would be covered by the CCTV) and that the thousands of pounds going into the project couldn’t more effectively be spent on other crime prevention measures.
Have your say below and let’s have the debate first, followed by the decision, rather than vice-versa.
