{"id":64799,"date":"2015-11-30T16:37:59","date_gmt":"2015-11-30T16:37:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?guid=a4891c66806f793cfa8d0d0231ec4e79"},"modified":"2015-11-30T16:37:59","modified_gmt":"2015-11-30T16:37:59","slug":"speech-humanity-vs-surveillance-commissioners-speech-to-stirling-university","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mostafa.openonline.co.uk\/?p=64799","title":{"rendered":"Speech: Humanity vs surveillance: commissioner\u2019s speech to Stirling University"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Good evening and many thanks to the Centre for Research into Information Surveillance and Privacy (CRISP<\/abbr>) and Stirling University for inviting me to preside over this lecture today.<\/p>\n

Ladies and gentleman of the jury society is charged with scant regard for its own people\u2019s civil liberties and privacy for allowing an unfettered proliferation of surveillance across the country. In my capacity of Surveillance Camera Commissioner, and judge, I will be facilitating today\u2019s hearing. First we will hear the arguments from the prosecution that surveillance has gone too far and then those in defence that surveillance is crucial in today\u2019s society. <\/p>\n

Opening remarks of the prosecution<\/h3>\n

Surveillance cameras sit on every street corner, in every pub and on every mode of public transport. They are hardwired into our cities and into the psyche of the public. It\u2019s said that in an urban area in the UK you are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems as you go about your daily business \u2013 not cameras, systems! If you want to know that\u2019s probably around 300 cameras!<\/p>\n

According to estimates from the British Security Industry Association there are anywhere between 4 to 6 million surveillance cameras in the UK. Indeed I\u2019m sure you will agree that seems like an extremely high number and that estimate is over 2 years old so it can only have increased since then. <\/p>\n

Are we living in a Big Brother society, have we got the balance right between our own basic human right to privacy and the surveillance camera culture that has swept across the UK? Whilst surveillance cameras may be a relatively new phenomenon \u2013 coming to the fore in the last 20 to 25 years \u2013 surveillance is not. So, I put it to you that the balance is completely out of step with the pressing need for surveillance.<\/p>\n

We are living in a society where our every movement is tracked not just by cameras but by numerous devices and methods. If the goal of modern day surveillance is to keep us safe from terrorist extremists, organised criminals and yobs on our streets who gave consent for this? Did you? I don\u2019t remember giving mine.<\/p>\n

I want to draw a comparison to something you may have recently read about \u2013 the national register of 1939. On the cusp of the World War 2 an army of officials were sent to every house and institution in the UK. They had with them a compulsory questionnaire that had to be completed \u2013 names, addresses, occupation and so on. Handwritten records for every person living in England and Wales, compulsory for all without exception. Mass surveillance.<\/p>\n

You might be surprised to know that virtually everyone complied with this and filled the form on in time. They didn\u2019t mind the government accumulating and storing this information about them. <\/p>\n

This is interesting because in 1915 the government tried a similar register, which fell flat on its face. It was connected to conscription and mothers hid the existence of their sons in an effort to stop them going to war. <\/p>\n

Why was the register a success in 1939 \u2013 rationing. Government needed to know not only who was working, but who was doing hard physical work so needed more food. So, if the wrong information was given or excluded by someone they would also be excluded from eating well too. <\/p>\n

Here there was a clear benefit for this mass collection of data, the intrusion into one\u2019s personal life was far outweighed by the benefit. <\/p>\n

If you compare this to surveillance in the past 10 to 15 years \u2013 and the government said recently that mass surveillance of the British public really stepped up a gear after 9\/11 \u2013 it is far less intrusive. <\/p>\n

Today the state has access to follow us where we go, listen to our conversations, track what websites we visit and so on. In 1939 Britain that would be the equivalent of them speaking to all of our friends and loved ones about us, reading our private letters and peering through all of our photograph albums.<\/p>\n

The Investigatory Powers Bill<\/a>, which was published in draft a few weeks ago bolsters this further.<\/p>\n

So, yes surveillance and surveillance cameras in particular do have a role in keeping us safe but at what cost to our own humanity, our own privacy? Society stands accused of getting the balance completely wrong.<\/p>\n

Legislation<\/h3>\n

Next the legislative framework for surveillance \u2013 are you clear on what it is because I\u2019m not sure I am.<\/p>\n

Take surveillance cameras \u2013 the data they capture is covered by the Data Protection Act, my role covers some elements of installation and standards and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner covers directed covert surveillance using cameras. But is anyone really clear how it all fits together.<\/p>\n

And here I would like to put forward that the use of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR<\/abbr>) cameras have an extremely unsteady legal framework. There is an argument that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights refers to the qualified privilege regarding interference into a person\u2019s privacy by lawful use. Because there is no law that enables ANPR<\/abbr>, does that make the use unlawful? <\/p>\n

I am not 100% clear on this and when I\u2019ve spoken to the Home Office they\u2019ve informed me that ANPR<\/abbr> is just another tool in the policing toolkit and so does not require a statutory authority. So, as long as National ANPR<\/abbr> Standards and Procedures (NASP) offers sufficient safeguards to protect against the article 8 right against intrusion into privacy, then any legal challenge is set to fail. Or is it? <\/p>\n

The crucial thing here is the data capture capacity that ANPR<\/abbr> has and the retention period. Is it necessary or proportionate to retain the data of innocent citizens for the current retention period of two years, if at all? And there are some quarters that would like that period extended further. At present around 8,300 ANPR<\/abbr> cameras nationally, submit between 25 and 35 million ANPR<\/abbr> \u2018read\u2019 records to the National ANPR<\/abbr> Data Centre (NADC) daily. I\u2019m sure you will agree ladies and gentlemen of the jury that is an astonishing figure<\/p>\n

An associated point to this is the data mining potential of up to 35 million data reads. ANPR<\/abbr> in UK must surely be one of the largest data gatherers of its citizens in the world. Mining of meta data \u2013 overlaying against other databases can be far more intrusive than communication intercept. <\/p>\n

ANPR<\/abbr> could be one of the world\u2019s largest non-military surveillance systems and probably contains more data about people than the NHS. Governance of such a system is central to its safe operation. Governance should be broadly based, expert, involving lay voices with clear lines of accountability and where possible takes place in public<\/p>\n

But who ever gave their consent to this, where is the legislation and where was the debate in parliament? So, I argue that some forms of surveillance have no legislative framework whatsoever.<\/p>\n

Advancing technology<\/h3>\n

My next point is technology. It seems the more we are subject to surveillance the more ways there are to do so and with ever advancing technology. Technology is moving at the speed of light and what was once just a bog standard CCTV camera is now a device capable of facial recognition or predicating behavior. <\/p>\n

With this technology are we running before we can walk? You may have seen the media stories a few months ago about the use of automatic facial recognition at the Download music festival by the Leicestershire police force. When it should have been Slipknot, Muse or Kiss picking up the headlines for their head-banging (I\u2019m told these are heavy metal acts that performed at the festival) it was facial recognition. This is because there was a perception that nobody knew it was being used.<\/p>\n

Here in Scotland we have the public space CCTV system in Glasgow \u2013 one of the most sophisticated in the UK that allegedly can track individuals\u2019 movements using an algorithm. The system is able to assign a unique signature to each person that walks past a camera, in real time, and then track their movements through the city. <\/p>\n

What is worrying is that there is currently no legal written guidance about when and how this system should be used and civil liberty groups are challenging the council, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government on this point.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s more. With facial recognition you require a database of images, faces, to match against. The FBI has \u2013 around 51 million images. In the UK our database is touching 18 million images made up of custody photos – they include photos of people never charged, or others cleared of an offence. Why are these innocent people on these databases? This is something that causes me, and the Biometrics and Information Commissioners a great deal of concern.<\/p>\n

And like with ANPR<\/abbr> who gave their consent for this sort of highly intrusive system. Do the public know that what they thought was CCTV is now a much more highly sophistic surveillance device? There are challenges in other parts of the world \u2013 for example Australia \u2013 where people are saying this type of facial recognition is wrong.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve also seen it reported that senior police officers have said that CCTV cameras should be placed lower down \u2013 at face level \u2013 so the new facial recognition technology can be used as effectively as possible.<\/p>\n

Currently CCTV is perched up high looking down away from an individual\u2019s line of sight. But how would they feel if it was at head height \u2013 literally in their face. And how would they feel if they knew the camera set up to protect them was now a device that captured their image, which was then put into a database and compared to millions images to see if they are a potential threat. Is that protecting them? Is that keeping them safe?<\/p>\n

So, technology is moving too far, too quickly before of the implications of it\u2019s use can be fully considered and understood.<\/p>\n

Poor systems<\/h3>\n

To use systems like automatic facial recognition you need fairly good kit or a fairly high specification and digital cameras, which leads me on to my next point. <\/p>\n

As technology advances much of our legacy systems lag behind unable to support what is emerging. This is particularly true of local authorities \u2013 many CCTV systems are not of a high enough specification to support facial recognition or algorithms that can predict behaviour. We have systems which are aging and decrepit and we are very much part of \u2018analogue UK\u2019, I thought we are in the digital age?! So, whilst the technology is there a question remains whether it can be successfully used.<\/p>\n

I ask you to consider this. If the kit is breaking down how can it protect us and if it can\u2019t what is the point of having it? I saw an article in the press a few months ago, which said that cameras in Walsall were out of action 3,000 times in three years! That is just unacceptable. <\/p>\n

And where there are systems in place the quality of the images that are captured are so poor it renders them useless. The police force in Cambridge have said they will no longer recover CCTV for bicycle thefts in the city because what they get is of such poor quality it is of no help in solving the crime. Cambridge has the most bicycle thefts in the UK per year.<\/p>\n

Equally, people are walking around thinking that CCTV in their towns is keeping them safe. They are walking around under a falsehood because it isn\u2019t, it\u2019s old, not working and not monitored.<\/p>\n

Standards<\/h3>\n

And why is the kit so poor in some areas? Because nobody is working to any recognised standards. Only around 2 to 3% of all local authorities in England and Wales comply with any recognised British standard.<\/p>\n

But there are standards available for organisations to comply with and follow so why aren\u2019t they doing so \u2013 2 reasons.<\/p>\n

Firstly, the standards framework is so complex that no one who isn\u2019t a technical expert in CCTV can navigate their way through them to actually work out which ones are relevant. I\u2019ve been in this role 18 months and I don\u2019t fully understand them! My standards board, which is full of technical industry experts and whose main purpose is to simplify the standards framework, still haven\u2019t managed it. So, if they can\u2019t wade their way through it how can a run-of-the-mill control room operator possibly hope to?<\/p>\n

Secondly, British and international standards are not free they have to be purchased. To buy all the possible standards you could have in relation to a CCTV control room it would cost \u00a31,402. That may not seem like a huge amount to ensure that a system used to protect the public is effective and efficient. <\/p>\n

But we\u2019re still in the grips of a biting austerity measures and none have been hit harder than the public sector. In this financial year alone local authorities are required to find \u00a32.6 billion of savings. Whilst \u00a31,400 might not seem like it will break the bank if that\u2019s extrapolated across the numerous schemes these organisations are likely to operate it is not an insignificant amount. <\/p>\n

Standards are substandard but even if organisations are meeting certain standards are members of the public made aware? This leads me on to my next point.<\/p>\n

Public blindness<\/h3>\n

Do the public know they are being monitored and the factors that affect that?<\/p>\n

Are they aware of what technology can or can\u2019t do. On one hand you have TV programmes like 24 or NCIS depicting a surveillance camera system that can pick out the time on someone\u2019s watch from a million miles away, zooming a million and one pixels up their nose. <\/p>\n

A point I made earlier in most cases the reality is that lots of CCTV systems are fairly old and will give you a grainy image at best if they\u2019re not high definition. On the other hand you have the advent of facial recognition technology and algorithms that can predict behavior. <\/p>\n

In many cases this technology is being used with out the widespread knowledge of the public causing an outcry from civil liberties groups \u2013 quite rightly I think.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re also seeing an increase in cameras being used for more than one purpose. So, the camera that people thought was there for public safety is now being used for traffic management 50% of the time. If this dual use was made more transparent amongst communities would they be happy with this? Or would they be worried that the camera that they understood was keeping their community safe was actually only doing that half of the time.<\/p>\n

And whilst I\u2019m on traffic management it\u2019s worth briefly mentioning ANPR<\/abbr>. In the UK ANPR<\/abbr> is everywhere \u2013 it\u2019s hardwired into our daily lives. The police use it for counter terrorism and serious organised crime \u2013 it\u2019s an essential tool in combating both of these.<\/p>\n

More recently ANPR<\/abbr> is being used to monitor if road tax has been paid on vehicles. The cameras read licence plates and if the vehicle is not registered as having paid road tax or it\u2019s lapsed a fine will be issued \u2013 I have no problem with this.<\/p>\n

The ANPR<\/abbr> system in the UK captures around 27 million images each day \u2013 a huge number. Surveillance on a massive scale. However, whilst there is some transparency on the number of images captured \u2013 which is generally number plates the total number of ANPR<\/abbr> cameras remains a mystery. I can understand why the police would not want to reveal the location of cameras as this could influence how organised criminals use the road network. But I see no downside to saying how many cameras there are \u2013 it\u2019s keeping the public in the dark. <\/p>\n

So, across the surveillance camera landscape there is certainly a level of \u2018public blindness\u2019. If their eyes were opened to some of the issues I\u2019ve mentioned \u2013 facial recognition, cuts to services and ANPR<\/abbr> \u2013 how would they feel about surveillance<\/p>\n

Individuals must be given the full picture so they can make an informed decision around their support for CCTV. If these uses are revealed in sensationalist media articles or through people like Snowden rather than through serious consultation with communities it will only damage the image of surveillance and the good it can do as opposed to the bad. <\/p>\n

Effect of surveillance cameras<\/h3>\n

Next \u2013 surveillance doesn\u2019t prevent crime. There is no robust evidence that cameras prevent crime. You even have a police and crime commissioner in Wales removing funding from CCTV because of this very fact. Take the awful events that took place in Paris last weekend would a camera have stopped these events?<\/p>\n

We have the most cameras in the world. But we can\u2019t watch all the people all of the time and most importantly cameras can\u2019t get inside someone\u2019s head to see what they\u2019re thinking, what they are planning or what they are about to do.<\/p>\n

So, if cameras don\u2019t prevent crime why have we got so many, why are they on every street corner?<\/p>\n

Closing remarks<\/h3>\n

In closing I put it to you that the balance of surveillance against the needs of society is way out. Cameras don\u2019t prevent crime, they don\u2019t work and where they do are substandard. Technology is moving far too quickly and without the consent of the public. If it\u2019s humanity versus surveillance \u2013 surveillance is winning hands down, it\u2019s not a fair fight. <\/p>\n

Opening remarks of the defence<\/h3>\n

My learned friend has presented a skewed reflection of surveillance in society. A posture that keeps us safe; keeps traffic flowing; provides reassurance to parents when our children our out, in tragic circumstances \u2013 7\/7, Boston, Paris \u2013 allows law enforcement to catch perpetrators. <\/p>\n

What is called for is a robust defence of technology that is seamlessly intertwined in our daily lives.<\/p>\n

What is called for is a clear eyed vision of the risks and threats facing society in the twenty-first century:<\/p>\n