Body Cameras Used By UK Local Government To Catch People Dropping Litter And Walking Dogs

from the illegal-pigeon-feeders-beware dept

Wed, Mar 8th 2017 3:15am — Glyn Moody

We've just written about the use of body cameras in UK schools. One reason these trials are taking place is probably because the technology is now relatively cheap, which lowers previous barriers to deploying it. So it should perhaps come as no surprise to learn from a new report from Big Brother Watch that body cameras are also widely used by UK local government departments (pdf). Here are some of the figures Big Brother Watch gathered using Freedom of Information requests to over 400 UK councils:

54% of all local [government] authorities across the UK are equipping members of staff or contractors with body worn cameras at a cost of £1,791,960.81 [about $2.2 million].

66% of local authorities are failing to completing Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) before deploying the technology and

21% of councils are holding non-evidential footage for longer than 31 days; the time limit adhered to by police forces.

The report has details about how many body cameras each local authority has -- one in London has 202 -- how much has been spent, and with which suppliers. It also offers some information about the kind of uses to which the cameras are being put:

the decision by some councils to equip staff with the cameras in order to film people dropping litter, walking dogs, parking or to monitor people's recycling, in order to use the "evidence" to issue a fine, we would argue is a disproportionate use of an intrusive surveillance capability and a potential breach of the privacy of law abiding citizens.

Many local government officials would doubtless disagree. After all, we know that UK councils are using highly-intrusive surveillance powers supposedly needed to fight terrorism in order to spy on excessively barking dogs and illegal pigeon feeding. It's a natural, if worrying, extension of that approach to start using body cameras for similarly trivial purposes.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: body cameras, littering, privacy, uk

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 2:36am

It's amazing how the UK has become 100% crime free and law enforcement can now go after angry babies crying too loudly.

(bonus points if you got the reference from a certain game *wink*hint*wink*)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 3:30am

Well its worked so well fixing everything else, we can just keep deploying it for all of the ills of society.

The only rights you have are the ones they allow, and if they can't be bothered to make sure they aren't breaking the law why should you care.

How long until they use the CIA's code to give everyone a free tv preloaded with spyware so they can monitor better inside homes and transmit important messages to the people. It would make it easier to spread word of our great victory in Eastasia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 3:52am

Spying, great British hobby, second only to gardening.

Wtf. Don't they have better things to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Lion, 9 Mar 2017 @ 3:12am
  
  Re:
  They're also big on complaining... Australian joke (apologies if you've heard it before):
  
  Q. How do you know the plane from England has arrived?
  
  A. You can still hear whining when the engines have stopped.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 9 Mar 2017 @ 5:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Right back at ya, Cobber:*
    
    How do you annoy an Australian?
    
    Ask them if their ancestors paid for their boat fare.
    
    *Just kiddin', mate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 4:39am

The same Local Authorities
Are these the same local authorities who are compalining that they cannot afford to provide proper care for the elderly and disabled - yet they can splash out £2M for this.
Seems to me that the moment a sexy new technology for controlling people is on the agenda all the talk of spending constraints and "living within our means" goes out of the window.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:51am
  
  Re: The same Local Authorities
  You can't put a price on "safety."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: The same Local Authorities
  Yes. That's why we nee fines. To pay for the cameras. How can you have cameras without any fines?
  
  Also, get off the lawn. That'll be twenty quid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 9 Mar 2017 @ 5:53am
    
    Re: Re: The same Local Authorities
    Where there's a camera, there's a contract and a funny handshake. *wink*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 4:40am

"... needed to fight terrorism in order to spy on excessively barking dogs and illegal pigeon feeding"

Those damn terrorists - their damn barking pigeons are pissin' me off!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:04am

Evil Flock
Jay-walkers, litter-bugs, terrorists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:18am

"the decision by some councils to equip staff with the cameras in order to film people dropping litter, walking dogs, parking or to monitor people's recycling, in order to use the "evidence" to issue a fine, we would argue is a disproportionate use of an intrusive surveillance capability and a potential breach of the privacy of law abiding citizens"

I'm not seeing the problem. These are body-worn cameras. So, it can be assumed, there is a person wearing this camera. Having recorded footage to go with their eye-witness testimony relating to a fine sounds great to me. We now have some additional evidence to go along with their word that someone needed to be issued a fine.

Nothing indicates that the cameras are somehow going where these agents have not been going in the past. The people being filmed are in public places or at least places in which the agents are allowed/able to go (and if this is not the case, we have the agent recorded doing something illegal).

The only issues I really see here are a failure to complete the privacy impact (is there a law requiring this?) and holding the footage longer than the police do. The second item only seems like an issue if the police are limited to 31 days by law - if not, someone should propose a law to limit the time footage may be kept by authorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:30am
  
  Re:
  Exactly. You can't have it both ways. You can't demand every aspect of a cop's daily job be recorded for later possible scrutiny, then turn around and tell him to ignore something that is in violation of the laws of the community. These are people in public places breaking the law.
  
  So what's the deal? TD has multiple articles denigrating the authorities and their perceived over zealous actions, and waxing about how NOT dangerous their jobs are, but when they are equipped with cameras to ensure they don't overstep their authority, we get an article about how stupid they are for doing their job correctly and enforcing laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Here's an example of where they draw the line ... oh wait - no it's not. They have no boundaries, they just want you to think they do - lol .... suckerz
    
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3507238/Social-services-set-up-CCTV-came ra-in-couples-bedroom.html
    
    http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/562833/Sir-Bernard-Hogan-H oww-CCTV-camera-homes
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JoeCool (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Here's the problem:
    
    Group of low-level flunkies are going through every frame of video looking for fineable offenses.
    
    Someone from major crimes division is in the background trying to get someone to notice him. "Hey! When can we get some of that footage? We need to see if there's any video of the robbery."
    
    Boss steps up to him. "Quit wasting their time! No one cares about the robbery - everything was insured. They need to make their budget quota for next month or we don't get the bonus, and damned if our Christmas party won't be the biggest and best in the region!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Group of low-level flunkies pointing cctv at known hotties bedroom window in hopes of seeing a little nudity
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    
    You can't demand every aspect of a cop's daily job be recorded for later possible scrutiny, then turn around and tell him to ignore something that is in violation of the laws of the community. These are people in public places breaking the law.
    
    If I got a fine for littering, I'd want there to be some evidence. If that's all this is--extra evidence for a ticket that was going to be written anyway--it's not a problem. I'd be annoyed if they were using it for mass surveillance, e.g., uploading the footage somewhere, running algorithms to catch littering etc. in the background of every scene filmed, and mailing tickets after the fact.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 9:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mailing tickets where? Does the UK have a law where everybody has their address stamped on their forehead?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Mailing tickets where? Does the UK have a law where everybody has their address stamped on their forehead?
        
        Facial recognition against driving/health/passport databases is easy compared to automated crime detection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I'd want there to be some evidence."
      
      This was quite easy in the past, the officer writing the citation was there and actually saw you do it. Perhaps our present problem is attempting to remove the human police replacing with a camera and bad software.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the article actually is discussing BODY cameras, so.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JoeCool (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I had to guess, this is an effort to force police to write more tickets to bring in more revenue. The shift supervisor will go over the officer's body cam footage and match violations seen on-camera against the officer's ticket book. Missing citations will result in a warning to the officer, depending on how often they miss offenses. No more leniency on the offenders!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yup
        
        So, you were not there when the cop took a video of some one like you doing whatever and you want proof that it was you .... but why did the officer not hand out the citation on the spot
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cowardly Lion, 9 Mar 2017 @ 3:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    "These are people in public places breaking the law."
    
    And if the law was that clear cut we wouldn't need judges. You clearly didn't hear the one about this orange-peel spraying evil-doer:
    
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11720952/Council-loses-nine-month- legal-battle-with-man-who-accidentally-dropped-a-piece-of-orange-peel.html
    
    or this, the old lady pensioner lint chucking terrormonger:
    
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108777/Grandmother-fined-75-littering-dropping -strand-cotton-gloves.html
    
    If the money raised from these fines went directly to an independent charity like Trees for Cities, or WWF, this nonsense would dry up overnight.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:30am

So these are manned cameras operating in public? What's the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Lion, 9 Mar 2017 @ 3:42am
  
  Re:
  Well, for starters you could see it as the thin end of a wedge, and something that's clearly not been thought through.
  
  These camera-wielding people are NOT police officers. They are local authority staff, or contractors even. So what happens if it's a child out walking a dog (and what the hell exactly's wrong with walking a dog for Christ's sake). There's been zero public debate about how far monitoring, or recording, or following, or contact between these pseudo-officials and children can go, if at all.
  
  It's nonsense that's going to end in a shit-storm, right before someone with an inkling of sense says "well, that was probably not a good idea" and dials the whole thing back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:32am

something else the UK has picked up from the USA! sooner or later the whole planet is going to be one massive police state, all started by the way the USA treats it's own people and even more so under the new President!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:52am
  
  Re:
  Actually, the UK has been pretty far ahead of the US when it comes to putting cameras everywhere.
  
  You can't blame this one on the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:00am
  
  Re:
  "the UK has picked up from the USA!"
  You're kidding right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

My_Name_Here, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:45am

I warned you, Masnick. This is what you get for demanding body cameras everywhere. Now you and your criminal buddies will pay dearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  
  I warned you, Masnick. This is what you get for demanding body cameras everywhere. Now you and your criminal buddies will pay dearly.
  
  Wut?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Daydream, 8 Mar 2017 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The issuing of body cameras brings police brutality (actual incidents and false claims of such) to an all time low.
    
    BUT
    
    Many more people are busted and fined for littering and walking on the grass.
    
    WillYouPressTheButton.com
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You and your buddy in the Whitehouse.
    
    /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron, 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:05am

Dogs?
It's illegal to walk dogs in the UK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Dogs?
  Probably not, but it is likely illegal to not pick up after them when they do their business, anyplace that isn't your private property. Someone is probably working on correcting this oversight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:34pm
  
  Re: Dogs?
  In some areas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]