Since I took up post as Surveillance Camera Commissioner nearly 3 years ago technology has moved forward at an incredible pace – particularly when I think about body worn video. When I took up post some police forces were starting to trial this kit – fast forward 3 years and those trials have finished and we have large forces like Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police rolling it out to all front line officers.
Police use of body worn video
Many forces have been pragmatic in their roll out of body worn video – hence the pilots and trials – carefully looking at the effects of the cameras. They are more intrusive than CCTV – they are usually worn on the lapel, so literally in your face and they record audio as well as video. Some research the Met carried out was quite startling – 33% reduction in allegations against officers, allegations of oppressive behaviour are 2.6 times more likely without body worn video, 90% of Londoners believe it will ensure officers follow correct procedures.
As forces have been trialling and rolling out this kit many have consulted me and my office so they ensure they are complying with the surveillance camera code of practice – which they are legally required to. In fact some are considering applying for my certification. This demonstrates a willingness to ensure that deployment of this kit is done effectively, efficiently and proportionately. That whilst forces see the benefits in terms of evidence gathering they also completely get that this should not be at the price of an individual’s right to privacy.
Others using body worn video
But as the police have embraced this technology so have others and it's not clear if they have done the same rigorous testing as the police. I know of local authorities (who must comply with the code) equipping their civil enforcement officers with body worn video – they work in roles where they are sometimes the subject of physical or verbal abuse. They use the cameras to record incidents if they feel threatened – my office worked with the South Essex Parking Partnership when they equipped their parking enforcement officers with cameras. All done in line with the code.
But it does trouble me when I read stories in the press about enforcement officers using body worn video to catch people dropping litter and fining them – not what they are deployed for. Public support for this technology will quickly wane if they think they are being spied on or caught out by cameras.
We’re also seeing body worn video deployed in hospitals – mainly for security staff in A&E departments. There were around 68,000 physical assaults on hospital staff in 2014/15 so you can see the rationale behind using cameras. Although, when people are in hospital, particularly A&E, they are often at there most vulnerable or distressed.
Are these security guards going into treatment areas with cameras switched on perhaps recording a violent incident but also recording everything else going on around them – someone being resuscitated for instance? That I’m not clear on and the NHS are not on the list of relevant authorities who must pay due regard to the code.
So, body worn video is a tool that can provide great benefits with regard to gathering evidence. However it is an invasive surveillance tool and must not be used without due regard to an individual’s privacy, the sensitive location of its use and proper recognition of legal and regulatory guidelines – please follow the Code!
Also make sure you sign up for email alerts and also follow me on Twitter.
2 comments
Comment by Malcolm Harding posted on
Hello,
I work for a local authority - West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA).
Myself and a colleague have responsibility for CCTV within all our bus stations and our CCTV system in those bus stations is monitored and controlled in partnership with Leeds City Council.
Our compliance of the codes of practice is monitored by their knowledgeable staff.
Due to the increase in anti-social behaviour, assaults and racial incidents within our bus stations we will hopefully be rolling out Body Worn Video cameras shortly to our security staff who work at the manned bus stations.
Our Privacy Impact Assessment is almost complete but I have a question re the Code of Practice.
Will the 12 principles to the Code of Practice apply to the body worn equipment be sufficient or should a more specific code be applied?
Comment by davidbuxton posted on
Hello Malcolm. Thanks for your query. In so far as compliance with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, the principles within the Code apply to body worn video cameras if you are deploying them overtly in public places. In that regard the Commissioner has provided a bespoke Self Assessment Tool (SAT) which you should complete, publish and review at least annually. A template form may be accessed by the following link and provides a 'whole system' approach to those requirements:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/549594/SAT_BWV.pdf
The Information Commissioner's Office has separately issued a Code of Practice to assist operators of CCTV surveillance camera systems comply with their Data Protection Act responsibilities relevant to personal information, the content of which you should consider and is accessible via the following link:
https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
I hope this is helpful. Feel free to contact the office directly if we can be of furthe assistance.