The report says that in public spaces individuals have little control over whether or not they have their imaged captured, and how that image is stored or used. “This lack of choice intensifies the obligation on camera operators and regulators to behave responsibly and to deploy surveillance technology only where it is of proven benefit in the fight against crime and where this benefit outweighs any detrimental effect on individual liberty,” it says.
While acknowledging the popularity of CCTV schemes and their use in public spaces, the report says “it has been difficult to quantify the benefits of CCTV in terms of its intended effect of preventing crime”.
It recommends that “the Home Office undertake further research to evaluate the effectiveness of camera surveillance as a deterrent to crime before allocating funds or embarking on any major new initiative. The Home Office should ensure that any extension of the use of camera surveillance is justified by evidence of its effectiveness for its intended purpose, and that its function and operation are understood by the public.”
Managing public expectations
The report also recommends that the Home Office “work with the police to increase public awareness and manage public expectations of camera surveillance”.
“Whilst we share the reservations of the police about unfettered public access to surveillance cameras, we endorse the Information Commissioner’s calls for greater transparency in relation to camera surveillance and recommend that the Home Office take steps to facilitate access to footage in certain circumstances, for example where an individual is seeking to eliminate him or herself from police enquiries,” the report says.
“In designing camera schemes operators should consider how long images need to be stored and the Home Office should support a principle of data minimisation in this respect.
“We acknowledge that technological developments have significantly increased the potential of camera surveillance in terms of crime detection. However, the Government should evaluate the impact of each major development for its effect on individual liberty.
“In particular, the Home Office should give its assurance that it will not countenance schemes such as those which involve the use of microphones attached to cameras, and in effect apply the techniques of directed and intrusive surveillance to the general public. Such measures impinge on the degree of privacy individuals expect to be able to enjoy in public spaces and the Home Office must take responsibility for guarding against this kind of constraint on individual liberty.”