Secure beneath the watchful eyes in Birmingham
Posted by tomfromthepost on January 2, 2008
This has done the rounds of the internet a bit, but couldn’t let it go away without pointing it out here. The UK has been named as an Endemic Surveillance Society by the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International.
Obviously us Big Brother-loving Brits lose out because of our lack of constitutional privacy rights, but the list of reasons given for nominating the country along with the likes of Russia and China for the worst privacy rankings still make fairly worrying reading. So I’ll list them in full here.
- World leading surveillance schemes
- Lack of accountability and data breach disclosure law
- Commissioner has few powers
- Interception of communications is authorised by politician, evidence not used in court, and oversight is by commissioner who reports only once a year upon reviewing a subset of applications
- Hundreds of thousands of requests from government agencies to telecommunications providers for traffic data
- Data retention scheme took a significant step forward with the quiet changes based on EU law
- Plans are emerging regarding surveillance of communications networks for the protection of copyrighted content
- Despite data breaches, ‘joined-up government’ initiatives continue
- Identity scheme still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven; plan to issue all foreigners with cards in 2008 are continuing
- E-borders plans include increased data collection on travellers
Back in March, Birmingham City Council quietly announced that 400 cameras installed to monitor traffic congestion would be turned over to the police to use for crime fighting purposes. Council transport boss Len Gregory said he thought most people welcomed increased surveillance because it made the city safer, and actually used the “if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” line.
Well I’m not sure about the first point, and I definitely don’t agree with the second. I’d be interested to see if any figures back up the point that CCTV cameras reduce crime (honestly, I’m not just trying to be argumentative), and I think the hoary old “nothing to hide quote” is frankly bollocks. I’ve got nothing to fear from the law, but I can still think of plenty of things I don’t want people to know about me. This kind of attitude seems to think there’s no need for privacy outside the home.
Well whatever you think of the council’s attitude to surveillance of the city and its citizens, at least they don’t have the cheek to take the mick with posters like the one pictured, put up by Transport for London.
Praguetory said
Fancy involving victims of crime in this debate? I know that when I had things stolen from my car I was desperate for the owners of the camera trained on my spot to turn over their footage – same applied when my gf’s back was nicked in a pool hall.
tomfromthepost said
Yeah it’s a tricky one, obviously if I were the victim of a crime I’d be delighted if a camera caught whoever did it. And not liking people using the “nothing to hide” line is a bit silly for me I suppose, as I don’t have anything o hide from the cameras – certainly not when I’m outside in a public area anyway.
I think part of what makes me uneasy is the idea of the state being in control of all these cameras – obviously I’ve got no problem if home- or businessowners want to put up cameras covering their property, all the better for them, there are private cameras covering where I live.
I’d also like to know exactly how effective they actually are – is there a source of figures relating to convictions secured by camera evidence? I suppose what I want is more transparency from the whol process. If the government is watching us, let’s have a source where we can see exactly where cameras are, what they’re watching, what they recorded and where that information is being sent and used.
Particularly worrying in the Birmingham example given is that the council didn’t feel it was necessary to announce that these congestion cameras were being turned over to the police. I’m not saying they tried to conceal it, obviously I found out when talking to them, but it cropped up in conversation, rather than it being something they feel the need to publicise. Whether they’re an infringement on liberties or not, I think that that attitude speaks volumes about the way many in power feel about the general public that put them there.
Karen said
Personally, I wouldn’t mind IF this extra camera footage were used to catch criminals, but as far as I can make out it isn’t.
Case in point: I live in a small town, & once saw a silver 4×4 zooming past in a residential area with another person’s bumper attached to the back! A few quick enquiries established that the 4×4 had misparked, got the other person’s bumper attached and chose to roar off, damaging the other car as a result. Couldn’t get the license plate – no-one had thought to get it at the time – but phoned the police with a description of the car and the direction in which it was headed.
Voice on other end of line: “Did you get the license plate?”
Me: “Sorry, no.”
Voice: “I doubt we can do anything, then.”
I was pretty shocked: cameras watching our every move from almost every traffic light and the police can’t track this pretty noticeable silver 4×4 with another person’s bumper rattling along behind it?