Legal Requirement To Install Cameras To Produce Evidence

[ilkie]

This is a move I have been watching for some time, with significant implications for the trade and end users.

Taken for the Daily Telegraph.

"Police and the Home Office are planning a significant upgrade of the CCTV network in a move that will deepen concern about a lurch towards a "surveillance society''.

New laws would require camera operators to ensure that their equipment produces images good enough for police investigations.

Britain has by far the most cameras in the world - about one for every 12 people

This follows an 18-month review carried out by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) amid concern about the quality of evidence supplied by millions of cameras. The findings are due to be published within weeks."

This should stir things up a bit.

Ilkie

[ilkie]

but what will happen with argos and b&q selling stuff like m*******k and g*t for domestic use or will this for commercial and rtowncentres etc.

I think that they would stop selling CCTV kit, as the law will probably make no difference between residential and commercial.

Ilkie

[Guest anguscanplay]

but what will happen with argos and b&q selling stuff like m*******k and g*t for domestic use or will this for commercial and rtowncentres etc.

nearly had you for defamation till i read it again

cctv is alarm systems thirty years ago and needs sorting if its not to loose public confidence

who has seen the relevant standards for cctv

[Cubit]

New laws would require camera operators to ensure that their equipment produces images good enough for police investigations.

Ilkie

And just how do they propose to define this??

You can have the best kit in the world but if it happens to be set to look at something and in the periphery an 'incident' occurs, yes you could see the incident but what of the quality?? Focus, depth of field etc Oh, and i assume they'll make wearing hoodies and baseball caps an offence??

[Guest anguscanplay]

This is a move I have been watching for some time, with significant implications for the trade and end users.

Taken for the Daily Telegraph.

"Police and the Home Office are planning a significant upgrade of the CCTV network in a move that will deepen concern about a lurch towards a "surveillance society''.

New laws would require camera operators to ensure that their equipment produces images good enough for police investigations.

Britain has by far the most cameras in the world - about one for every 12 people

This follows an 18-month review carried out by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) amid concern about the quality of evidence supplied by millions of cameras. The findings are due to be published within weeks."

This should stir things up a bit.

Ilkie

would that be the people pressing buttons and following yobs around zooming in and out or the people who own cameras

[ilkie]

nearly had you for defamation till i read it again

cctv is alarm systems thirty years ago and needs sorting if its not to loose public confidence

who has seen the relevant standards for cctv

This goes further, if this is adopted there will be an legal obligation regarding the quality of the CCTV system.

The alarm industry may work under British and European standards, but they are unlikely to be prosecuted if the alarm system does not perform.

Ilkie

[Guest anguscanplay]

This goes further, if this is adopted there will be an legal obligation regarding the quality of the CCTV system.

The alarm industry may work under British and European standards, but they are unlikely to be prosecuted if the alarm system does not perform.

Ilkie

see thats a good point we have to carry failure to perform insuarance and most of the footage i have seen would fail any resonable test of suitabilty for the job?

[Doktor Jon]

Having delighted in last weeks Ealing Council CCTV cameras hidden in baked bean tin story, I think we'll just have to wait patiently for the ACPO / HOSDB document to be published, before we can say for sure what it contains.

Even if there is a proposal to lay down standards for the future, who's to say that the same rules will apply retrospectively to existing CCTV installations?

[TSionline]

hi guys

isnt it true that evidence from cctv surveillance is not garauteed to be used in a court of law, it is the judges decision. if thats correct then i dont see this making all that much of a difference, as it wil just give the judge a guideline to choose what is admissible and what isnt. And regards end users installing the likes of m***** and g** in homes, i dont see this affecting that much either, as peolpe who purchase those items do so knowing they are low end (and therefor low quality) and i doubt many of them use it as a serious CCTV system, with regards playing back & archiving etc

just for the record, of course a better standard of CCTV can only help and as a distributor i'm all for it as just means replacement orders . but i dont think it will have much affect on low end sales.

just my 2 cents

[Doktor Jon]

just for the record, of course a better standard of CCTV can only help and as a distributor i'm all for it as just means replacement orders . but i dont think it will have much affect on low end sales.

just my 2 cents

I take your point TSi but I don't entirely agree.

I'd better nail my colours to the mast here, and say that I am about to do my little bit within the industry, to try and improve CCTV performance, generally.

My somewhat naive theory is that it shouldn't cost any more to do the job right, rather than to simply do the job.

It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about a little old lady with CCTV, a commercial premises or a town centre scheme, there has to be a much greater understanding of what the equipment is being used for, before the installation actually takes place.

I am somewhat at odds with some of my peers, in that it has been mentioned to me time and again that 'standards' need to be set in terms of clinical specifications, whereas my perspective is that it shouldn't be about what's written on a specification sheet, but rather what the equipment will actually do when it's installed correctly (a simple example might be using a top end 540 line camera, then sticking a grotty wide angle lens on it, and discovering it won't identify an individual at 25 metres).

Time and again, I hear the same comment from those in the know, and that is the image that will most often crack the case, is the one captured quite innocently from a more basic commercial or domestic system, that the suspect didn't even realise they had been caught on.

As an industry, I think we all have a responsibility to try and make sure that if we are providing a video surveillance installation (whether CCTV or IP Video), then it should be 'doing the biz', and that should equally apply no matter what the situation.

The vast majority of system failings are simply down to lack of knowledge, and I think now is as good as any time, to try and do something about it.

I realise this may sound like I've travelled too far up my own back passage, but after so many years of looking at cr*p, I'm now finally up for doing something about it.

Any thoughts ...