Britain has
millions of them,
yet they didn't stop
the bombers of
07/07/2005. They
may, however, have
kept others from
following in their
footsteps.
I don't know
about where you
live, but here in
the Vancouver area
they're talking
about putting
cameras on all the
buses (amongst other
places) and we've
just had a murder
all but solved by
the use of video
from a commercial
camera in a parking
lot.
I see cameras at
intersections, on
highways, in back
alleys, and in
stores. The problem
is I don't know
whether it's my car
being noticed to
trigger the lights,
or the camera was
set up to steal my
PIN number.
CCTV cameras can
be useful, but they
can also be
intrusive and even
dangerous to
individual freedom
and security. Maybe
we need some
regulations that
give we who are the
subjects of the
cameras some
information on their
use.
I've written on
this subject
before (Digital Rag
June, 2002) but,
while that was after
09/11, their
application to
thwart terrorism was
not at the forefront
of the security
mind; or at least
not publicly so.
Since 07/07 this has
changed radically.
The CCTV cameras
didn't stop the
explosions - but
they may have
stopped further
ones. This is what
it is all about.
There are other,
related technologies
(recognition of
whether a package is
left in a public
place))) that may
help, but it is the
actual cameras that
provided many of the
clues used to track
down where the
bombers came from
and possibly stopped
others from
following in their
tracks.
On the other
hand, a couple of
days ago I noted
(after I'd keyed in
my PIN) that the
security camera over
the cash register at
the Home Depot store
I was in had an
excellent view of
not only the area
around two cash
registers, but also
the keypad on their
cash-card system.
Was the tape on this
camera viewed either
in real time, or
regularly by some
security guard who
also had access to
the account number
my card scanned in?
How long were the
images stored before
being overwritten? I
really wanted to
know!
So, if we presume
that the information
that cameras have
provided in specific
instances has
stopped other crimes
from being
perpetrated, then
(some) CCTV cameras
save lives. But
there are so many
others that simply
show actions for
some unknown
audience, and which
may or may not
record them for some
period of time, we
really need some way
of knowing who to
talk to about what
may be severe
personal invasions
of privacy at
minimum, and
potentially invasive
and illegal actions
at worst.
In case you
haven't realized it
yet, I've been
thinking on and off
about this for
several years now. I
keep coming back to
the notion that
"what we need is a
solution that both
the police (security
agencies) and the
privacy advocates
can live with" (from
my June 2002
article)
Back then I
proposed a solution
that roughly equated
a camera like the
memory and notebook
of a police officer
- with an in-built
facility to "forget"
over time but
potential to be
noted "forever".
Today I'll settle
for just knowing
more detail about
what is going on
behind the camera.
What I propose
today is more like a
license plate for
each camera, with
some method of
learning more about
what is done with
the images the
camera takes so I
can make an informed
decision about
whether I want to be
near it, and know
who is accountable
or who will
intervene (the law?)
if things are not as
they are
"registered". In
effect I propose a
function of
government that is
akin to the
licensing of a
car/truck, along
with at least a
broad categorization
that the public
would be able to
understand easily
when near the camera
and with no other
references.
I propose that each
and every CCTV
camera have attached
to it (or close by
and obviously
associated with it),
a plaque visible and
readable by anyone
with "normal"
eyesight within its
immediate vicinity
that tells a minimum
about what the
camera does, who
might be watching
it, and how long a
recording of its
output might
normally be
retained.
The format of
such a plaque is up
for debate, but I
suggest 3 things:
A "type" code
with information on
broad category of
what the camera is
for, whether or not
it is monitored in
real time, and how
long images are
normally saved
A URL for "more
info"
A unique
registration ID
assigned by the
local "competent
authority"
The "Type" code
should embody at
least minimal
information on what
the camera is used
for, whether it is
monitored by a human
in real time, and
how long in broad
terms the images are
normally stored.
Something like
BB4H:
B - camera is
for a public
industrial process
(e.g. traffic
control)
B - camera is
not monitored by a
human in real time
(the intersection
circuitry figures
out where cars are)
4h - images are
normally kept for 4
hours unless
subpoenaed by police
(the local storage
is overwritten after
this time)
Other categories
for camera type
might be:
A - camera is
for a process not
normally anywhere
near the public
(camera on a wood
processing line for
example)
C - camera is on
private property for
security purposes
D - camera is on
public property for
security purposes
Other categories
for camera
monitoring might be:
A - camera is
used for real time
process control not
expected to impose
on privacy in normal
use
C - camera is
monitored randomly
by a human
D - camera is
monitored in real
time by a human
And for image
retention:
0 - not retained
at all
xM - retained
for x minutes
xD - retained
for x days
999 - retained
indefinitely
The URL should be
somewhat
standardized in its
format (e.g.
12345.camera.xyzcorp.com
or
12345.cam.city.area.gov,
etc.), and the page
it points to should
also have a minimum
information format
that should be
mandated. This
probably should
include information
about the agency or
business that owns
the camera, who
might monitor it (an
employee or
contractor or
security company or
the police for
example) and some
information on what
its capabilities are
- color/BW,
resolution, lens,
fixed or moveable
and an indication of
the area it covers.
Additional
information might
include time-delayed
or real-time feed or
sample stills.
The whole idea
behind such a plaque
and information
system is to balance
the loss of privacy
with some semblance
of informed consent.
If I am walking
down a street and
encounter a police
officer or security
guard, I have the
expectation that my
presence may be
noted in their own
memory or their
official log if I
fit some criterium
known only to them.
On the other hand,
the fact that they
are in a uniform and
obviously "part of
the security
establishment" and
identified by their
uniform design,
identifying badges,
identity number or
name badge gives me
some semblance that
there is
professionalism
behind whatever note
they might take of
me - and in fact in
most places, some
government
regulation and
overseeing of that
professionalism.
This is why we
require such people
have such
identification.
Is there any
reason why cameras
should be treated
any differently??
