Regulating Cctv
Creators: name: Adams, A.A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017

description: Given that the number of CCTV cameras in the UK is the largest in the world, and given that it is unclear when video data should be regarded as Personal Data (or what rights a blanket definition would reasonably provide to the surveilled) it is claimed that a CCTV Act is needed in the UK. This claim appears to be supported by the police authorities [Bal06a], although in addition to a broad claim regarding protection of privacy, their view is that private CCTV should be forced to be of sufficient quality and sufficiently accessible, to be of use to the police. Given the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners� [OSC] existing role in oversight of police surveillance operations, it is suggested that the OSC be made responsible for licensing and regulating CCTV systems and operators. Protection of raw video data as a potential source of Personal Data when processed is necessary (and currently outside the scope of the Office of the Information Commissioner [OIC]). Where raw video data is sufficiently processed to produce Personal Data or where it is linked with other data sufficient to identify individuals, the data would then pass to the aegis of the OIC. Specific proposals for securing data and infrastructure are suggested, in addition to some general Surveillance Protection Principles. This record was migrated from the OpenDepot repository service in June, 2017 before shutting down.
description: {"references": ["[Bal06a] M. Ballard. Home Office to grab for more CCTV power. www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/22/cctv powers/ accessed 11.01.2007, Nov 2006. [Bal06b] M. Ballard. Privacy guardian to examine Shoreditch CCTV scheme. www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/17/ic eyes shoreditch cctv/ access 15.01.2007, Jan 2006. [Bri98] D. Brin. The Transparent Society. Perseus, Jackson, TN, 1998. [Dub03] L. Dubbeld. Observing bodies. camera surveillance and the significance of the body. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(3):151\ufffd162, September 2003. [Fro00] A. M. Froomkin. The death of privacy? Stanford Law Review, 52(5):1461\ufffd1543,May 2000. [Gal04] C. Gallagher. CCTV and Human Rights: the Fish and the Bicycle? An Examination of Peck V. United Kingdom (2003) 36 E.H.R.R. 41. Surveillance and Society, 2(2/3):270\ufffd292, 2004. [Goo04] B. J. Goold. CCTV and Policing. Oxford University Press, 2004. [Lyo02] D. Lyon, editor. Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Automated Discrimination. Routledge, Oxford, 2002. [Lyo06] D. Lyon, editor. Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Willan, Cullompton, Devon, UK, 2006. [Mey85] J. Meyrowitz. No Sense of Place. Oxford University Press, 1985. [NA99] C. Norris and G Armstrong. TheMaximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV. Berg, Oxford, 1999. [Spr99] P. Sprenger. Sun on Privacy: \ufffdGet Over It\ufffd. www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html accessed 15.01.2007, Jan 1999. [UK 05] UK Information Commissioner. Obligations towards CCTV Systems. www.ico.gov.uk/Home/for organisations/topic specific guides/cctv.aspx accessed 11.01.2007, 2005. [Whi99] R. Whitaker. The End of Privacy. The New Press, New York, 1999."]}