Watching Big Brother
Richard Scott looks at the increasing use of CCTV equipment and how the Data Protection Act can be used to bolster an already burgeoning industry.
If you feel that walking down a street past 8pm in your neighbourhood constitutes a dare-devil act, it would seem you’re not alone. Statistics concerning the ‘fear of crime’ now abound almost as much as those for actual crime, leading the Government to set itself targets to reduce the level of perceived threat, along with the usual targets for burglary, assault and car theft.
Often the figures for burglaries indicate a low rate of cases while public fear of break-ins is on the increase, which either suggests the media is exaggerating the likelihood of crime or that people are fearfully barricading themselves in their homes giving burglars no chance. Or, perhaps, both.
The analogy of people hammering planks of wood across their windows may be fanciful, but what is true is that people are feeling more protective of their homes and businesses, and more willing to use high-tech equipment to achieve a sense of security.
Home electronics retailer Maplin recently announced its sales of CCTV equipment have risen 265% over the past 5 years; a remarkably sharp increase considering the technology has been around since the 1940s. However, the evolution from large clunky cameras to discreet wireless units has now been reached and obviously makes the decision to install a small system practicable.
With this increase comes a raft of potential problems. Although domestic CCTV systems are not directly covered by the Data Protection Act, there is growing support from civil liberty groups for the government to change this. In any case, there is nothing to say a significant proportion of the systems sold by high street retailers will not end up being used on small business premises.
Britain is one of the few countries where the public readily accepts surveillance cameras in almost every area of life. 15.5 million scan our buildings, pathways and roads (one for every 5 people), and according to industry watchdog CameraWatch, more than 90% of these systems fail to comply with the Data Protection Act, which could lead to serious complications if the footage was needed as evidence in court.
The list of possible reasons for failure is extensive due to the labyrinthine nature of the Act. Some of the stipulations, particularly when associated with CCTV, almost cross over into territory normally reserved for philosophers and semiologists. This, along with the phenomenal number of surveillance cameras, is one of the major reasons for the lack of adherence, but a cursory look across its requirements for the quality of picture and maintenance reveals a range of opportunities for an engineer. The Data Protection Act 1998 requires that, “Cameras should be properly maintained and serviced to ensure that clear images are recorded.”
This requirement is obviously slightly at odds with some of the budget equipment on sale, which could easily find itself drilled to the wall of a small office. Mike Norcross, from CCTV specialists Y3K, explains: “The increased sales experienced by Maplin is an industry-wide trend. The problem with many of the cheaper DIY systems people buy from High Street retailers is that the image quality is so poor they are unlikely to provide adequate evidence to convict someone.”
If they are unable to provide adequate picture quality to serve their intended purpose, then a commercial user will not be operating within the confines of the Act.
Although there is no legal obligation for either a supplier or installer of CCTV equipment to sit down and take a customer step by step through the various nooks and crannies of the Data Protection Act, it should be something worth considering. After all, their systems are more or less worthless in a legal capacity if the owner or operator is not fully aware of how to situate or use them.
The Act is something of a minefield but companies who install CCTV equipment should accept a level of Duty of Care to the customer, if not to the extent of a full Data Protection rundown, then at least offering genuine guidance as to where they can get the information. The figures suggesting more than 90% of systems are operating illegally indicate this is not happening currently.
For an astute CCTV company, increased pressure on businesses to adhere to the Act could open up new revenue streams through helping people ensure their systems are compliant. For instance, many companies who were initially keen to keep outlay to a minimum will now have undersized hard drives, incapable of providing adequate images once stored. Upgrades and maintenance contracts could be yet another boon for the industry in the future.
Also, with Data Protection fresh in the mind of the Government after the losses of the Child Benefit discs, it is unlikely the relatively lax approach to compliance will be possible for much longer.
Example:
EPA spoke to Bernie Brooks of Data Protection Act compliance company, Datpro, and he illustrated the nuances of the law with the example of CCTV signage.
Many companies feel that sticking a sign reading ‘CCTV in operation’ underneath or nearby a camera is enough to satisfy the law. Well, apparently it isn’t.
If you imagine signing a credit agreement whereby you are asked to tick a box before entering the agreement, that is essentially what is required with CCTV signage. This means that the sign needs to be placed on a wall or post before anyone walks into the view of a camera lens. Therefore, if a camera situated over an entrance to a building has a field of vision 10 metres either side of the entrance, then any signage needs to be more than 10 metres away from the camera.
It is also worth noting that operators of CCTV equipment can be personally prosecuted for illegally installed equipment. The operator could be a receptionist or security guard who had nothing to do with the installation of the system, but due to them being sat in front of a monitor they will be considered ‘processors’ of the illegally obtained information.
Related Articles...