Case Studies

Body-worn campaign

by Mark Rowe

The privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch (BBW) is concerned that the rush to use body worn cameras by local authorities is not being scrutinised closely enough. More than half of councils have tried, are using or have used body-worn video cameras; including by contract staff, the campaigners say in a report. It’s found that London boroughs such as Newham and Tower Hamlets have been the biggest spenders on body worn video, and have the most body worn cameras.

BBW considers that many councils have a poor records of using heavy-handed surveillance tactics and claims they are often lackadaisical with their approach to protecting personal data. Deploying body worn cameras to protect staff from verbal or physical
abuse may have validity, BBW admits; no workers should feel unsafe at work. But the decision by some councils to equip their staff with the cameras to film people dropping litter, walking dogs, parking or to monitor people’s recycling, to use the “evidence” to issue a fine, it argues is a disproportionate use of intrusive surveillance and a potential breach of law abiding citizens’ privacy.
The campaigners raise two concerns over body worn cameras. Firstly, the initial filming of people in a public space; and secondly, the retention of footage showing direct engagement between official and citizen, which includes a record of the citizens’ face, voice, mannerisms and behaviours.

The group calls on local authorities to ensure the technology is only deployed when proven to be absolutely necessary, and (using language of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s code of practice) proportionate to the problem they are trying to solve. Officials must then ensure the retention of any data adheres to the strongest safeguards in light of the potential
sensitivity of the data being handled.

If they fail to properly engage on the issue of privacy, if citizens feel as though they are being filmed for no good reason by unnecessarily intrusive officials or if stories are published which reveal poor data security, loss, breach or misuse of the footage then councils will face inevitable criticism and a public backlash, BBW adds.

“The enthusiasm for the technology is clearly growing, and yet no authoritative study has ever been conducted to illustrate whether there are any benefits to local authorities investing in the technology … We would therefore propose that local authorities proceed with caution before adopting body worn cameras further,” the report says.

It found Edesix, Pinnacle Response and Reveal Media to the be three main suppliers of body worn cameras.

For the report in full visit https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Smile-you-are-on-Body-Worn-Camera-Part-1-1.pdf.

Related News

  • Case Studies

    Nigerian data centre

    by Mark Rowe

    ISM, with systems integration partner, Active Intelligence, has been awarded the first phase of a nationwide contract at national infrastructure in Nigeria.…

  • Case Studies

    Airport CCTV upgrade

    by Mark Rowe

    Last year, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport in Montana expanded its terminal area by adding 125,000 square feet of space, including three additional…

Newsletter

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to stay on top of security news and events.

© 2024 Professional Security Magazine. All rights reserved.

Website by MSEC Marketing