Last week Security Installer editor Alan Hyder wrote in his ‘SI Editor’s View’ of the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ CCTV debate going on in the UK, and specifically about the “creeping database culture that is now a legitimate concern in the UK”.
I think there’s a lot of truth in what Alan has written there. But I don’t think that this is the only threat to the UK security industry. I think complacency is the industry’s biggest potential danger.
The UK security industry is in a unique position. It is trusted, more so than perhaps any other national security industry anywhere else in the world. This is probably due to the tradition of relatively non-intrusive governments and government agencies in the UK. (That’s relatively, remember.) Compare this to most of Europe, which has a tradition of being deeply wary of intrusion into citizens’ private lives thanks to state campaigns of terror, secret police, etc, even in the distant past, not to mention during the Cold War years. Europeans, historically, are far more likely to act on their suspicions if they believe government or industry are behaving in a dodgy fashion.
And the UK security industry is currently riding on a wave of goodwill. The results achieved with the July 21 attempted bombers and the speed with which CCTV images have been made available to the public following major incidents have reinforced the industry’s image as being useful and effective, and of being an active part in the fight against crime and terror.
But we need to be very careful that the industry as a whole does not take this acceptance as a given. The public here may not take to the streets in anger, necessarily, but we sure know how to make our disgruntlement heard once it reaches critical mass.
Take, for instance, the whole ‘talking cameras’ issue. Of course we know that cameras with audio capabilities have been available for years, and that operators have had the ability to warn potential offenders off remote sites, or forecourts etc, for some time.
But the media coverage surrounding the talking cameras, for use by local authorities, was based on them being employed in an intrusive fashion. We were told that cameras would be able to alert someone to pick up their litter and put it in a bin. This, I’m afraid, is idiotic.
The very reason that the level of CCTV coverage in the UK is accepted is because it doesn’t seem to affect us on a day-to-day basis. We don’t feel like there are people actively watching us all the time. Sure, late at night in a town centre it’s reassuring to know there are operators keeping an eye on the drunk and disorderly, but it will be denounced as a waste of time and security resources if ‘talking cameras’ are felt to be a nagging constant.
They need to be used to combat genuine threats to public safety, and to be seen as doing so.
Similarly, the ‘Mosquito’ product, which is designed to emit high frequency tones audible only to those under 20 years of age, has been touted as a means of dispersing youths from shop fronts or other areas where there might be a problem.
But the industry needs to be very wary of being seen endorsing a product such as this, which, to my mind, is a totally indiscriminate and dangerously proactive piece of kit. And, without wishing to further enrage any readers of a more conservative disposition, there is a major human rights issue at stake.
That’s correct – human rights. And not the ‘human rights’ you see bandied about by the same sort of people who seem to think there’s some kind of PC conspiracy afoot to stop it being the 1950s – the actual, genuine human rights of someone to not be considered a criminal simply on the basis of their age.
Yes, there need to be measures taken to protect shopkeepers and others against criminal elements, and yes, a lot of ‘troublemakers’ are likely to be young. But it is totally unfair – and, I suspect, will prove ultimately illegal – to physically prevent someone from being somewhere purely on the basis of their age – and without current laws in place which would support it. Not all teenagers cause trouble, just as – and I know this might come as a shock – not all migrants, illegal or otherwise, are here for criminal purposes or to exploit the UK’s welfare system.
But all of that’s not really the point. The thing is, these products are contentious. And the industry needs to make sure that its current good image is maintained. The short term benefits of publicity, mentions on This Morning, radio interviews, etc, will surely be outweighed by the longer term creeping public suspicion of the security industry as – yes – a Big Brother-style intrusive nuisance.
And that is the very last thing the UK security industry needs to happen.