CCTV Research Event

MCAF-UMA-CCTV-Use Case

admin — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:51:49 +0000

Context and Rationale
My research has led me to the hypothesis that Notices and especially the regulatory ones are the key strateguc point of focus for evolving and advancing rights in identity management. As notice infrastructure represents, rights, transparency, balance, community, authority, and information. Notice is universal to all of the guidelines, privacy instruments, and I predict will be a common theme for emerging new regulation. User managed access protocol is the method to which notice can be driven. In effect informed consent cannot be achieved without notice. But most importantly this use case explores the innovation UMA can make possible in notice to evolve what is the existing infrastructure and regulation (such that it is) into a globally interoperable one where individuals and the community interest can economically thrive in the information society
Up until now there hasnt been sufficent digital identity management tools and infrastructure to build a layer that is master driven. Today, 26.7% of the global popoulation of humans access the Internet.

Background
A bit of Use Case background, the Identity and Access Management marketplace, which includes video surveillance and identity management, is expected to grow by a whopping 23% CAGR1. Cisco predicts that video ip traffic will grow by fourtimes between 2010 – 2014,2 Britian has 20% of the worlds surveillance camera’s. 90% of these are not compliant with notice regulations stipulated in the UK Data Protection Act. Britain now has a estimated 10 million automatic number plate recognition system, that is currently un regulated. New regulation is going to be announced at the end of September, early October.
From this use case perspective the use of notice is especially clear in the case of CCTV as Closed Circuit Television, is a very descriptive term and it clearly can be interpreted to means that the data is closed circuit and not shared. This is important as it was clear when this technology was first made that cameras provide one way transparency. Providing an unchecked or regulated position of information power and secrecy to the operation of video surveillance. AKA Secrecy and Surveillance. For this reason the original use of the term closed circuit was important to relay the privacy and security aspects of this newly intrusive technology, critical for the acceptance of video surveillance at the time.

The sharing of personal information by an institution is one of the few things in the DPA that clearly says that an individual has the right to know if the information will be shared with third parties. 3 Specifically, “(iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed”.

Identity Trust CIC – Website

admin — Mon, 10 May 2010 08:12:29 +0000

For more information goto Identity Trust CIC Website

Consent & Notice: A CCTV Case Study

admin — Sun, 09 May 2010 11:41:23 +0000

In 2009, Identity Trust conducted consent and notice research with three objectives:

1. To study secrecy in surveillance: Measuring Consent & Notice in London

2. Develop a methodology to measure the degrees of legality and trust of CCTV Consent & Notice

3. Gain a deeper understanding of Consent & Notice in Society

This research was apart of a cross disciplinary MSc Social Science Research dissertation conducted by Mark Lizar.
This involved survey London councils with Freedom of Information Requests to find the leas transparency borough for notice and consent
This involved picking a sample in Hammersmith & Fulham to go and record every camera, and every CCTV
This involved appealing the Hammersmith & Fulham FOIA decisions to the Information Commisisoners (ICO)
This involved designing trust metrics to see what companies are the least trustworthy
This involved an analysis of Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s CCTV Practices

Research Battle with Hammersmith & Fulham for Camera Locations

admin — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:07:04 +0000

Research into the transparency of CCTV and video surveillance entailed the field research documenting and observing video surveillance in Hammersmith. In addition to the submission of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to 10 councils for information on the location of CCTV cameras.

Two councils failed to provide information that was complete or in a format that was useful, and one council Hammersmith & Fulham refused under section S31 to provide the location of council operated video surveillance systems in the borough. Stating the reason, “ because by releasing the information we would fail in a statutory function under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, in failing to protect the public from crime and disorder within the borough.” (email Alison.Ross-Dow@lbhf.gov.uk 22, May 2009)

An appeal was sent into Hammersmith & Fulham and this request was again refused. Resulting in this appeal being sent into the Information Commissioners Office as the refusal to provide the location of CCTV cameras is a violation has created numerous concerns about citizen safety, along with an Article 8 European Charter of Human Rights violations

ARTICLE 8
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Identity Trust CIC review of CCTV research asserts, that the use of CCTV for reduction of crime is misleading the public trust as research indicates that CCTV may increase feeling of safety without decreasing crime.

There is a significant lack of contextual integrity in the use of surveillance in this Boroguh. Identity Trust is very concerned that the lack of transparency, the misleading use of public resources and changes in law in recent years are creating systemic issues that are damaging and weakening society. The RIPA Act which is un-modified after the House of Lords recommendation to do so is being used with out transparent process by councils to monitor people using CCTV for petty non-terroist related activities.

Additional regulation where UK citizens are no longer allowed to protest publicly, take pictures of the police, in addition to not knowing when and by who a citizen is being recorded by camera leaves citizens defenseless to protect themselves against undue interference by public authorities and this severely undermines the security of the person.