"We would want cases where a photographer takes indecent photographs of someone without their consent and for example posts them on the Internet or in a pornographic magazine to be treated particularly seriously by the courts."
"We intend to criminalise the covert observation, whether by remote, mechanical or manual means, of another person or persons performing acts of a sexual and/or intimate nature without his or her consent in circumstances where he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The offence will apply where the person carried out the covert observation for his or her own sexual gratification or for the sexual gratification of others. This offence will not interfere with or hinder the legitimate operations of the press."
Check our Voyeurism page to see if this apparent protection against some of the most egregious abuses of CCTV surveillance actually gets into law or if the paparazzi pornographers lobby against it.
If you thought that "New Labour" would champion the cause of personal civil liberties, as promised before the election, you may be disappointed with the results so far:
Supposedly this is "Emergency" legislation following the Sept 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA, but this Act is full of controversial clauses such as detention without trial for foreign suspects and dubious Parlimentary time wasting provisions which cut short the debate on the real issues.
e.g. This Act now makes it illegal to detonate a nuclear weapon in the UK, - why did this cunning plan for nuclear defence never occur before to either the Ministry of Defence, or to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament ?
Why has the police power to order the removal of disguises been increased ? Where is the evidence that the previous anti-hunt saboteur inspired powers were insufficient ?
The Data Retention clauses would seem to cover the retention of CCTV camera footage as well, the cost implications of which seem to have escaped Parliament. Scandalously, there was literally no debate at all about these controversial clauses - they went through the Commons "on the nod" and were fillibustered in the Lords to prevent debate.
If CCTV Surveillance is meant to play a role in anti-terrorist defences, why was there no mention of it all in this Act, let alone any clauses or money to ensure that those CCTV Surveillance systems which are in use in critical areas are actually maintained to a reasonable standard, with adequate staff and training and are able to provide a tamper proof trail of evidence ?
The Crime & Disorder Act has provisions for anti social behavior orders, sex offender orders, the power to pick up truants, and local child curfew schemes, all of which could be enforced with the help of CCTV schemes, or which might be used to help justify expenditure on them, without any mechanisms to correct the inevitable mistakes.
Incredibly, the plan introduced by the "anti- hunt saboteurs" lobby to give the police powers to remove masks, scarves, balaclava helmets for identity purposes, and is now part of this Crime & Disorder law. What use this will be before making an arrest is hard to forsee. Perhaps demonstrations, or just walking down the street, will only be allowed on condition that people unmask themselves for the benefit of CCTV Surveillance, even before they have committed any crimes.
So that the UK can finally sign up to the European Declaration of Human Rights, there is a Human Rights Act which comes fully into force in October 2000.
Unfortunately, the Article 8 on Privacy seems to have so many exceptions that it looks to be of little value in practice - it only takes one of those exceptions to be interpreted and enforced in the style of "anti-soviet activities" to devalue the whole Declaration.
"Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
"By reference to earlier Convention case-law, the Court found that at the time of the interference with the applicant�s conversations, there had existed no statutory system to regulate the use of covert listening devices. The Home Office Guidelines which existed were neither legally binding nor were they directly publicly accessible. The Court therefore found that the interference with the applicant�s right to respect for his private life and his correspondence was not "in accordance with the law", as required by Article 8 � 2 of the Convention. It therefore found a violation of that provision."
We think that what applies to covert electronic audio surveillance should also apply to CCTV Surveillance, and that a similar argument can be made:
As there is still no law in the UK regulating CCTV Surveillance, and since there is still no Privacy legislation, it means that the "law and order" exemption clause in Article 8 similarly does not apply. Therefore, in our opinion, the use of CCTV Surveillance cameras, by the police, or by anybody else such as private companies, or local authorities, also breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If you wish to bring a case under the UK Human Rights Act 1998, which came into full force in October 2000, refer to the Home Office Human Rights Unit
The revised Data Protection Act is now law, and should, according to its principles of data protection, protect people from the potential abuses alluded to elsewhere on this website. However, it does not seem that the huge loopholes and exemptions of the 1984 Act have been closed in the new Act, and the lack of powers and budget of the Data Protection Commissioner make proper enforcement just as unlikely as with the old Data Protection Registrar.
CCTV footage is considered now to be under the purview of the Data Protection Act if the system is one of the newer, more advanced ones with any form of searching or indexing. However, the people who have set up systems such as the Trafficmaster Passive Target Flow Monitoring (vehicle number plate recognition and movement pattern tracking) or Newham Council's Mandrake (facial recognition system) are choosing deliberately not to register them with the Data Protection Commissioner.
We have yet to find any CCTV system, even those which user computers to search for or produce ands store images to have been registered under the Data Protection Act - search the Register
A formal complaint under this Act is being prepared
Your Internet Service Provider or even the company or organisation you work for, will be forced to assist in bugging all your internet traffic (like SORM in Russia run by the succesor to the KGB) by secretly installing communications links to the MI5 Genreral
It will be an offence to tip off anyone that they are under e-mail or web surveillance (penalty 5 years in jail)
You will have to prove that you have genuinely forgetton your password to encrypted information - what happen to the principle of not having to prove your own innocence ? (2 year jail penalty)
Already large multinationals are moving their non-UK specific databases and email servers outside of the UK
c.f. Foundation for Information Policy Research and lobby your MP through the Stand web to fax gateway
The current Home Secretary is David Blunkett, who has overcome blindness to succeed as a top politician. However, his promise "to make Jack Straw look like a liberal" makes us uneasy.
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP is the Home Secretary, a "winner" of Privacy International's Big Brother Awards
According to a report by Polly Newton in the Daily Telegraph (13th May 1999):- 'The loss of privacy brought about by closed-circuit television cameras is "a price worth paying" for greater security, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said last night. Mr Straw, delivering the annual Barnett lecture at Toynbee Hall in London, said that there were an estimated one million security cameras in stations, streets and shopping centres. On an average day in a big city, a person would be filmed by more than 300 cameras from 30 different CCTV networks "In effect, we have traded some of our rights to privacy in public spaces for increased security. Most of us think this is a price worth paying. The presence of CCTV has brought both reassurance and real reductions in crime and ... has become a key tool in bringing to justice some of the most serious criminals"'
If we could be sure that such CCTV schemes were being installed and run properly, with a minimum of privacy loss to the public, we might agree with the Home Secretary, but unfortunately his laissez-faire attitude to the regulation of CCTV abuses is not acceptable
The Home Office, like all UK Government Departments, is still not really yet set up to deal with email responses from the general public, but you could try: [email protected]
The snail mail address is:
Home Office
Public Enquiry Team
Room 856
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London SW1H 9AT
Facsimile: 020 7273 2065
Telephone Switchboard: 020 7273 4000
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Challenge Competition (Round 4 - 1998/99) is the latest £1 million pound CCTV subsidy scheme (£8 million was already approved last year before the election) to help fund more CCTV Surveillance systems. £37 million of public money has already been spent on the previous 3 rounds on over 550 schemes.
Here are some of the areas which have already been granted this public money. Check to see how much your local council and others have been spending on CCTV Surveillance - some towns have spent over £1 million just on capital costs already !
The Home Office does ask for justifications and a proposed code of practice at the bidding for public money stage, but has no machinery in place to monitor or review their cost effectiveness and does not hold CCTV operators to account once a scheme is in place. Potentially there are over 550 slightly different Codes of Practice for the existing systems. Scotland and Northern Ireland are outside the scope of this "competition".
There is still time to lobby your MP to demand effective, accountable CCTV systems, with criminal penalties to prevent abuse of CCTV Surveillance technology
You could try to contact your MP preferably by snail mail - they still think that letters and envelopes matter more than electronic mail messages, by fax or, if you are lucky, by email.
If they are not available by email, then to contact your MP, write to him/her at House of Commons, Westminster, SW1A 0AA; or telephone 0171-219 3000.
The new Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, and the Mayor of London and Greater London Assembly are still in the process of being set up, but will have a lot to say on local policing matters. Hopefully a few of those elected will seek to raise the issue of CCTV Surveillance Regulation.
Your Local Authority Planning Committee is the place you would complain to about objectionable buildings or street hoardings etc. However they may already be participants in the 550 or so Public CCTV Surveillance schemes that the previous government spent £45 million pounds in subsidising, and, just for good measure, managed to exempt such schemes from Local Authority planning procedures. If you paint your house or office the wrong colour "out of character" with the surroundings, or erect the wrong kind of satellite dish or advertising hoarding, your Local Authority will be see you in court, but you can, apparently, put up CCTV spy cameras with impunity
Your local Member of the European Parliament (MEP) might seem to be a remote figure with little real power, but forthcoming European Human Rights, Privacy and Data Protection legislation could have an influence on UK law.
Find your local MEP (there are only 87 of them for the UK)
On the side of CCTV and other technolgy commercial suppliers is the BSIA, the British Security Industry Association, whose 330 or so member companies turn over about £2 billion annually. They are meant to be working on a CCTV code of practice for their members, as it is not in their commercial interest to have too much public opposition to their products and services. Like most trade associations, they do in fact welcome a "level playing field" approach with a clear regulatory framework to work within, which, at present the United Kingdom does not yet have.
Privacy International is one of the few groups who have questioned the effectiveness and ethics of CCTV Surveillance.
Better known civil liberties organisations such as Amnesty International or Statewatch have yet to come up to speed on the current and future trends in technology.
Liberty formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, does seem to have taken up the case of the Brentwood man whose suicide attempt was captured on CCTV and broadcast by the BBC etc. nationwide, without consulting him, or hiding his identity.
Return to the top of this page