4 ms·

Cameras are owned by councils and used to catch minor crimes like dog fouling.[1] Your local police own several hundred cameras directly. [2] Your police can

Cameras are owned by councils and used to catch minor crimes like dog fouling.[1] Your local police own several hundred cameras directly. [2] Your police can request access to any public facing camera at any time. There does not exist a right to decline. No warrant process exists. [3] [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/may/22/localgovernment.localgovernment https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/may/22/localgovernm... [2]: https://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/foi-ai/af/accessing-information/cctv/how-we-use-close-circuit-television-cctv-cameras/?__cf_chl_tk=b1ppdzkgtiost5ec5ilx7ojtlfsabzlkckovehywlda-1687961178-0-ganycgzndba https://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/foi-ai/af/accessing-inform... [3]: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/sharing-personal-data-with-law-enforcement-authorities/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

lucozade 3y ago
The first article does not say that councils own cameras nor that cameras are used for catching minor crimes. It does state that powers intended for serious crimes were, incorrectly, being used for prosecuting minor crimes and that it's possible that CCTV cameras were involved (though could have been park wardens). The third article says pretty much the opposite of what you state: there is absolutely a right to decline a law enforcement request (under GDPR) and that there is a warrant process ie a court can oblige you to. I can't access the second article but I don't live in Wales so they aren't my local force.
scott_w 3y ago
> Cameras are owned by councils and used to catch minor crimes like dog fouling.[1] I hate to say it but "not all cameras." A relatively small number of CCTV cameras focused in areas intended to catch and deter specific petty crimes is hardly Enemy of the State stuff, is it? In fact, if you polled the populated, you'd probably not get a lot of objections here. > Your local police own several hundred cameras directly. [2] Again, not all cameras. This is really only strengthening my argument about the patchwork nature of CCTV and the practical reality that it's not the all-encompassing Bourne Identity live feed tracking you round the country. > Your police can request access to any public facing camera at any time. I already addressed this: this would usually be an after-the-fact tape, not a live feed. They can't just take the tape because that's not their property. They don't necessarily have to tell you because the tape isn't your property either. Does the general public necessarily object to the police being able to use available evidence to solve and prosecute crimes?
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  More than 100,000 live public cctv systems. https://securityjournaluk.com/public-cctv-cameras-tops-100000-for-first-time/ https://securityjournaluk.com/public-cctv-cameras-tops-10000... Boroughs alone operate over 20,000 cameras. https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in-london/ https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in... How many more cameras until you feel safe? Even if one property owner declines to hand over cctv footage and somehow the search warrant is denied (which basically never happens) then there are probably several other camera owners who will provide footage. Everywhere you go, everything you do is on film. The police have access to it either in real time or by request form. And yes, those cameras are used to stop crimes.. like not picking up after your dog. Obviously this intrusion is necessary for your safety and security. How else can the police provide such valuable services?
fourfour3 3y ago
I don't understand how you get > Your police can request access to any public facing camera at any time. There does not exist a right to decline. No warrant process exists. [3] from [3]: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/sharing-personal-data-with-law-enforcement-authorities/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re... That page is about companies sharing CCTV with law enforcement by choice, not about being forced to do so?

lucozade 3y ago

The first article does not say that councils own cameras nor that cameras are used for catching minor crimes. It does state that powers intended for serious crimes were, incorrectly, being used for prosecuting minor crimes and that it's possible that CCTV cameras were involved (though could have been park wardens). The third article says pretty much the opposite of what you state: there is absolutely a right to decline a law enforcement request (under GDPR) and that there is a warrant process ie a court can oblige you to. I can't access the second article but I don't live in Wales so they aren't my local force.

scott_w 3y ago

> Cameras are owned by councils and used to catch minor crimes like dog fouling.[1] I hate to say it but "not all cameras." A relatively small number of CCTV cameras focused in areas intended to catch and deter specific petty crimes is hardly Enemy of the State stuff, is it? In fact, if you polled the populated, you'd probably not get a lot of objections here. > Your local police own several hundred cameras directly. [2] Again, not all cameras. This is really only strengthening my argument about the patchwork nature of CCTV and the practical reality that it's not the all-encompassing Bourne Identity live feed tracking you round the country. > Your police can request access to any public facing camera at any time. I already addressed this: this would usually be an after-the-fact tape, not a live feed. They can't just take the tape because that's not their property. They don't necessarily have to tell you because the tape isn't your property either. Does the general public necessarily object to the police being able to use available evidence to solve and prosecute crimes?

vorpalhex 3y ago
More than 100,000 live public cctv systems. https://securityjournaluk.com/public-cctv-cameras-tops-100000-for-first-time/ https://securityjournaluk.com/public-cctv-cameras-tops-10000... Boroughs alone operate over 20,000 cameras. https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in-london/ https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in... How many more cameras until you feel safe? Even if one property owner declines to hand over cctv footage and somehow the search warrant is denied (which basically never happens) then there are probably several other camera owners who will provide footage. Everywhere you go, everything you do is on film. The police have access to it either in real time or by request form. And yes, those cameras are used to stop crimes.. like not picking up after your dog. Obviously this intrusion is necessary for your safety and security. How else can the police provide such valuable services?

fourfour3 3y ago

I don't understand how you get > Your police can request access to any public facing camera at any time. There does not exist a right to decline. No warrant process exists. [3] from [3]: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/sharing-personal-data-with-law-enforcement-authorities/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re... That page is about companies sharing CCTV with law enforcement by choice, not about being forced to do so?