The SMT Online Interview: Web Exclusive

Do we want 'bin police' or CCTV training?

07 Sep 09

Generally, as a business Norbain doesn’t tend to comment on wider industry issues, but when the company’s managing director Alun John saw the results of our CCTV End User Survey he immediately picked up the phone and called Brian Sims.

By Brian Sims

“CCTV is being misrepresented,” urged Alun John, the mild-mannered head of Norbain, from his office in the heart of the Winnersh Triangle, “both in terms of what it does and what it can do. No-one is shouting in its defence. It’s almost as if surveillance technology has been hijacked by the police service, the politicians and civil liberties groups to suit their own ends.”

John had called my group director, Simon Parker, last Wednesday after reading a couple of stories we published on SMT Online. The first of them a survey conducted by CCTV In Focus – in conjunction with ourselves – to measure end user attitudes and views towards CCTV, the second an article I wrote outlining Metropolitan Police Service statistics suggesting that one in every 1,000 cameras in central London helps to solve a crime.

“The Met story that surfaced on the BBC’s web site, and was then plastered all over the national papers, first surfaced around six months ago,” explained John with a hint of exasperation in his voice. “In combination with your own survey of end user attitudes, it raises interesting issues for CCTV operators that demand to be addressed.”

CCTV funding issues are the problem

The plethora of town centre surveillance schemes we’ve witnessed these last few years were, of course, part-funded by the Government. However, it then came to light that the budgets had made no allowance for ‘maintaining’ these initiatives in terms of training the operators and funding the schemes longer term.

Hence many local councils have begun using their cameras to monitor bus lanes, etc for monetary return in order to make up the financial shortfalls. Indeed, one London Borough has used its cameras to target collections of something like £20 million per annum from such revenues.

“There has been, and continues to be, a lack of understanding in terms of what CCTV can do,” urged John. “Budgetary constraints necessarily mean that the police service cannot always do what it wants to do with CCTV. It’s far from an ideal situation.”

John then referred to the Home Office guidelines on CCTV systems. “CCTV is there to detect, recognise or identify. All of those who are anti-CCTV say that you cannot identify. In truth, most surveillance systems are set up not to identify but to detect. For example, for reasons of Health and Safety the retail space end user might organise their surveillance to monitor how many people are in a shopping centre at any one time.”

Harking back to the latest episode of Real Crimes on ITV1, John referred to the cameras in the Liverpool retail mall that captured young James Bulger as he was abducted, and the haunting images that none of us will ever forget. “They were lousy images, to be honest,” explained John, “but the point is they were good enough.”

The Norbain chief also mentioned the resources available to the police service when it comes to analysing CCTV footage. “If a serious crime is committed then the police will have usable video at its disposal. CCTV will identify when there is a terrorist incident. Look at the images captured on the ‘dumb’ system at Luton train station prior to 7/7. It’s all about how much effort can be expended in relation to police man hours and available budgets.”

Sleepwalking into a Surveillance Society

You’ll recall not so long ago when the Information Commissioner's Office suggested that we were all sleepwalking into a Surveillance Society, and offered the view that there are too many cameras in this country. On a personal note, I felt – and still do feel – that this was rather an irresponsible statement to make, and I began to wonder what John’s views might be on the matter.

“I am a firm believer in data privacy and the Data Protection Act, Brian,” countered John without a moment’s hesitation. “I don’t want to see the State bestowed with overbearing powers. On that basis, I’m really concerned about the degree of monitoring we’re now seeing in terms of things like loyalty cards, web site use and telephone calls.”

Carrying on the theme, he opined: “However, I find CCTV far less intrusive. We give out far more personal information every day to other areas than we do CCTV. Some groups such as Liberty have taken the plethora of public space cameras as a hook on which to hang their argument that we’re all oppressed and living under the rule of Big Brother. It’s nonsense.”

For John, the reality is that “post-9/11, the world is now a very dangerous place” – a sentiment echoed by last night’s documentary on Channel 4 entitled: ‘9/11: phone calls from the Towers’ which, if any of you saw it, was harrowing to say the least.

“The articles that appeared on the BBC’s web site and on the front of The Daily Telegraph in response to last week’s story on CCTV in the Capital would suggest that we all want to be protected from the threats that exist. Of course we do, but these reports also point to the fact that there is something of a disconnect between part of the police service and society.”

Deprived element of the mainstream

Alun John and I agree 100% on a truism that, in today’s world, people with a drug habit or merely a penchant for theft can steal from shops almost with impunity because they know they’re going to be let off with a slap on the wrist – assuming the case even makes it to the Courts in the first place.

“They see themselves as the deprived element of the mainstream of our community, and it seems to be that not much is being done to stop their petty brand of criminality,” urged John. “As a law-abiding citizen that infuriates me.” You’re not alone there Alun, I can assure you.

Coming back to the first instalment of the I4S/CCTV In Focus end user survey that appeared on SMT Online last week, we reported that 85% of those clients surveyed feel their surveillance systems work well and deliver what they want. “CCTV does work well,” said John, “but you have to bear in mind that there will always be bad installations. As far as I’m concerned, the main issue to be addressed with public sector CCTV is the inadequacy of funding in place for the satisfactory provision and training of operators.”

According to John, many client organisations simply don’t have the available funds to be able to view all of the images recorded unless something serious happens. For their part, most retailers have invested heavily in CCTV to prevent criminality, but also to protect members of staff. There’s a need to prosecute offenders, but there’s also a requirement to safeguard workers in light of the Corporate Manslaughter Act.

Over the years, John has witnessed several recordings which have been used to try and catch out those members of staff accused of breaking the rules, perhaps because they’ve been blackmailed into a life of petty criminality. “Staff theft is a huge issue, and we need CCTV to pick up on that,” said John.

Indeed we do. We also need in-house retail security operations to be licensed, but the Big Boys in that sector seem to have flexed their financial muscles in the belief that their operations are so much better than any laws laid down by the Security Industry Authority. The Government has backed down on the matter for at least three years. I believe that’s a parlous state of affairs, and I’m eagerly awaiting a test case to prove the retailers wrong.

Licensed and trained security officers

“My contention,” outlined John, “is that if you really want to identify someone then you need properly licensed and trained security officers in place. That’s a labour-intensive solution, but there must be a mix of technology and people involved in the fight against crime. There’s a simple financial argument to be had here. Do we invest in ‘bin police’ or do we pump more money into CCTV training?”

John was referring to last Wednesday’s news that families could now be facing fines of more than £500 for breaking wheelie bin rules introduced by draconian local authorities acting on behalf of the Government.

The penalties are being imposed for ‘offences’ such as putting your bin out too early or taking it in too late, leaving out unnecessary sacks of rubbish or even, God forbid, over-filling your bins. You’d be fined less for beating someone up in the street. It’s pathetic, and totally in keeping with the warped views of the current administration.

“If you put your bin out early it’s a £110 fine, but if someone chooses to go and steal from Sainsbury’s it’s a £120 fixed penalty. If they’re caught, that is. It’s a ridiculous situation.” No argument from me there whatsoever.

We then began to discuss the issue of how CCTV images are presented and used in Court. “CCTV isn’t used that often,” said John. “For several reasons, there’s a general reluctance to use it unless it’s absolutely necessary.”

CCTV and its influence on guilty pleas

At this point, Andrew Pigram (Norbain’s technical director) joins the conversation, brought in deliberately by John to take care of – as you might expect – the “deeply technical” segments of our conversation.

“I would like to know the statistics on how often CCTV footage being played has persuaded suspected criminals and their lawyers to lodge a guilty plea,” asserted Pigram. “I would reckon the figure must be pretty high.”

For Pigram, the answer to the problem of ‘usability’ in Court all comes down to how a CCTV system is designed. Systems, of course, could be set up for identification or observation, or indeed both.

“If you are a private sector company and you catch criminality with your system, it’s important to remember that every time that evidence is tampered with in any way it increases the chances of the case being thrown out in Court. The police need first and best evidence. They want that evidence in open standard format so that it will play on Windows Media or DVD. This works for the police, but unfortunately not for everyone else involved.”

Put simply, Pigram is of the firm belief that CCTV footage must always be recorded in a user friendly format that can form a substantial portion of the prosecution’s case. “What that really means is that we need a global standard for encrypted video. We’re not there yet, and that’s partly why the police service is so frustrated.”

Mirroring Pigram’s thoughts, John said: “We need more manpower to analyse the data being captured by CCTV systems. We are not in a position to replace the human eye, and it’s likely that we never will be.”

In conclusion, he stressed: “First and foremost, the Government exists to protect the people of this country, but if we’re putting more energy and finances into fining people for overfilling their bins than we are CCTV operator training, then questions have to be raised as to whether Parliament’s priorities are what they ought to be.”