“One of the main differences between the Data Protection Act (1998) and the Freedom of Information Act (2000) is that any information released under FOI is released into the public domain, not just to the individual requesting the information.”

Southampton Uni?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/scotland_yard_internal_cctv_repo

Wrong attitude, Tim. You should be PREVENTING crime, not just boosting crime stats.

And, I don’t know what Cambridge’s figures are, but this report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6081549/One-crime-solved-for-every-1000-CCTV-cameras-senior-officer-claims.html indicates that Cambridge should only be catching 1 criminal every 2 years with their paltry 422 CCTVs.

Maybe the council will be charging for access to their CCTV network to generate a bit of extra income using this scheme: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6263882/Snoopers-could-win-1000-prizes-for-monitoring-CCTV-cameras-on-the-internet.html

I assumed that when the council’s CCTV manager made such statements (or gave evidence in court) he’d limit himself to commenting on factual matters such as the siting of cameras, their technical capability, viewing angles, integrity of evidence etc. I’m shocked that a council officer has gone further and offered an opinion on who was the guilty party in an incident.

It’s so obvious that the council’s CCTV officers shouldn’t be making statements like this it would almost be crazy to put a line in the policy; however the case you’ve linked to shows it is needed.

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/77/article16.html

Cllr Ward has opposed my calls for better signage of CCTV to improve the deterrence and reassurance effects; he takes the opposite view and supports more hidden cameras on the grounds he thinks they’ll catch more criminals.

Cllr Herbert has called for all unusual and novel uses of CCTV to be put before councillors; Cllr Howell opposed that arguing that officers should make operational decisions and councillors should simply review them after the fact.

My view is that putting CCTV to a novel use is a strategic and not an operational decision.

What I think is important is that councillors on Monday debate and agree the city’s CCTV policies in an open and democratic manner. now’s the time for those with views on the subject to lobby councillors.

*The policy describes an explosion of new “code of practice” documents; as such it doesn’t really solve the inconsistency problem. I would suggest one document could cover what the council is going to split over many tens of documents.

*Could the situation where the council used hidden cameras to monitor independent punters on Jesus Green happen again under this new policy?

*There’s no point in a policy if it’s not going to be followed.
-Is the council really planning to sign the *areas* covered by CCTV. I think it should; but I’ve been lobbying for this for years and it hasn’t happened. The council has been breaching its own code of practice on this. I don’t think signs on poles really count as signing “areas” and think that particularly on the green spaces more could be done to make clear where CCTV is in use - increasing the deterrence and reassurance effect of the cameras.

-Is the council planning to discontinue its use of hidden CCTV cameras to catch those flytipping on recycling sites?

*This document is light on what I would call policy. I want to see policies on:
-Notifying those who live and work in the line of sight of RCCTV cameras; and providing reassurance about the where privacy zones have been set. I’ve had people from Norwich Street and Martingale Close contact me following RCCTV deployment on those streets. No such reassurance and explanation currently occurs.

-Clarifying the seriousness of “crime” which warrants use of CCTV. I want to see my councillors debate issues like if persistent parking on the pavements or in cycle lanes, driving the wrong way up one way streets, dangerous driving (eg. Hills Road Bridge) can be enforced using CCTV footage. Sticking the cameras up as a “deterrent” to such actions - the council’s current practice - is almost as bad as a dummy camera if the council isn’t to use the footage for enforcement.

*The City Council isn’t the only body to run public CCTV in Cambridge. It would be good if, as with council seeking to get the the tree policy applying to all trees in the public realm, the council sought to get other operators of CCTV in the public realm to commit to the key elements of the council’s policy.

*Why isn’t the decision to report to strategy and resources on statistics on RIPA and non-standard other uses of CCTV mentioned in the policy?