printer friendly version

Can there be too much surveillance?

When does surveillance become too much, where should it stop, and what is too small an issue to be looked at? For those who feel that there can never be enough cameras, this may seem a strange question. We are all concerned about safety, so what is wrong with having more cameras? It is a question that the UK is coming to grips with in recent months as usage of CCTV to resolve petty issues is highlighting concerns about a 'surveillance society' where every action is under observation and no privacy exists. The debate has been strengthened recently in the UK where public surveillance CCTV has been used for activities such as checking over whether a family lives in the correct area for the school they are assigned to attend, widespread littering issues, detection of dogs fouling pavements, and dumping or 'fly tipping' as it is known in the UK. How does this compare with critical issues such as violent crime, terrorism, drug dealing, and anti-social behaviour that has seen the increase of deaths due to knives and guns?

I was invited to a CCTV User Group conference in Manchester during April this year at which the implementation, strategy, and issues relating to CCTV was discussed widely among delegates and addressed by the Shadow Minister of Home Affairs, James Brokenshire MP in a keynote presentation. In a well balanced perspective on the need to reconcile security needs with the right to privacy, he highlighted the need for security together with a public interest in privacy and good standing. This has always been a core focus in the approach of Government in the UK to the implementation of CCTV – public support has been seen as an essential part of acceptance and effective operation. The Shadow Minister made the point that CCTV has seen the greater enforcement of the law in ways the public may not necessarily have thought of. For him, this highlighted the need for the 'right to know' about surveillance, greater transparency, and defined and appropriate usage.

Without doubt, some UK citizens feel they are being criminalised by going about their daily living. They are questioning how comfortable they feel in a state where they can become the ready target of 'security'. This was not supposed to be how it was – CCTV was supposed to stop the big crimes and make places a safer place to be. Of further concern is that these systems are then sometimes seen as a 'revenue generation' facility by public bodies rather than the original mandate of protecting the public interests. The line between these may be manipulated by spin doctors acting for either party, but citizens may well have some basis for grievances.

At the conference, I was frequently made aware of the cost pressures small town centre CCTV operations have been placed under in the current economic climate, with CCTV functions diluted by care line monitoring, and a range of physical security functions. Yet the CCTV operator's attention may be directed at 'non-essential' events. If CCTV is being used to detect minor social infringements rather than the essential crime issues that are going to the root of society, is this a wise use of a limited resource. On the other hand, for the citizens who are enduring the social and physical consequences of dog fouling or illegal dumping, these issues may be highly important in their frame of reference for the quality of their lives. Walking in a major park close to me and seeing the extensive indications of illegal dumping, I can share their concerns and would love to see cameras around to pick up the culprits. So where do we draw the line at what are 'real issues'.

The city CCTV control room in Manchester has recognised many of the current issues. CCTV activities are separated with the core function of CCTV retained as a major focus. A function such as bus lane monitoring which results in fines to car drivers taking short cuts down designated bus routes is run separately within the control room, as are parking monitoring functions which are run by a private security company. Detection of illegal dumping is done at key sites which the public have indicated and are designated as 'hot spots' in this respect, but these monitors are in a secondary display. In an effort to control what was an increasing gun crime issue, over 40 mobile cameras are used to conduct surveillance of critical areas in which these crimes typically occur and camera views are displayed on the core surveillance screens. These cameras are moved around as required by intelligence information and they are capable of relocating a mobile camera in two hours. Sets of core surveillance cameras can also be displayed at certain times of day according to risk, reflecting priorities I have made in a previous article and at the conference. Overall, the actions that show a carefully considered and operationalised CCTV strategy for which the control room manager should receive credit.

Although defining the extent of surveillance may be a public issue, it also concerns those who work in industry. There is an ever present call for more cameras, and this highlights the importance of defining what is 'appropriate use' and how we define the success of the systems. This 'appropriate use' is not just a privacy issue, but a functional and operational issue. Mixing too many purposes into a CCTV operation also creates its own dangers of which stakeholders it should be serving. This can even occur within an organisation with clashes between security, safety, production and other departments. Besides different stakeholders, we also need to ensure in both public and industry surveillance that we have balance and clear proportionality in what is covered – usage should be related to the key concerns or risk factor and the CCTV response should reflect this profile. It is all too easy to focus on the easy things to detect and let the difficult issues go unattended, no matter what kind of CCTV environment one is in. One also needs to question whether the increasing use of CCTV as a substitute for physical presence is always the best measure, or whether the distancing from real policing or security in the name of costs takes away an essential personal element and dilutes the impact of CCTV itself.

To address issues in public surveillance, James Brokenshire indicated that one also needs limitations attached to the operation of CCTV. This is for both the protection of the purpose of surveillance as well as the welfare of the public. It is not in the public interest for CCTV to become an instrument of public body or municipal income rather than to protect the public. Further, it should not serve the interests of those in office but rather the public itself. Defining limitations of usage should scope out the boundaries of how CCTV should be used in the interest of the public who pay for this, rather than the authorities who govern them. In this sense, the UK gives us important lessons. Many from the UK indicate that we should not necessarily follow what they have done as they have made many mistakes. On the other hand, they have also done many things right and their concern over privacy and ensuring public commitment serve as useful models for other countries. This applies particularly in our own where the public at times question whether institutions and state services are serving the people, or those who run them. At the least, it should make us think through what we want from our CCTV operations at work and in public life. It is not necessarily that there is too much surveillance, but how appropriate is it for the purposes to which it is put.

Dr Craig Donald is a human factors specialist in security and CCTV. He is a director of Leaderware which provides instruments for the selection of CCTV operators, X-ray screeners and other security personnel in major operations around the world. He also runs CCTV Surveillance Skills and Body Language, and Advanced Surveillance Body Language courses for CCTV operators, supervisors and managers internationally, and consults on CCTV management. He can be contacted on +27 (0)11 787 7811 or [email protected]

Share this article:

Further reading: