Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-pendulum-swings-both-ways dept.

Surveillance Camera Commissioner Tony Porter has told the BBC that local councils in England and Wales are turning off CCTV cameras in order to cut costs. According to the Independent, "One West Midlands council had deactivated a third of its cameras [by studying crime statistics and identifying areas where they were not needed], saving £250,000 in the process":

Councils in England and Wales are turning off CCTV cameras in an attempt to cut costs, a surveillance watchdog has warned. Tony Porter, the surveillance camera commissioner, said switching off cameras would mean the police would find it harder to detect crime. He told the BBC the situation was a "concern" and blamed the government's austerity cuts "sweeping the country". He is due to present his findings to the government in the autumn. Mr Porter, who is the commissioner for England and Wales, said budget cuts had led councils to decide to spend less on public space CCTV, meaning there was less money for staff training, poorer understanding of legal issues and a reduced service.

In a separate interview with the Independent, Mr Porter said: "There are an increasing number of examples where councils and employees are citing a lack of money as being the rationale to reduce the service or completely change its composition - and that does concern me. "Because CCTV isn't a statutory function, it is something a lot of councils are looking at. Most people recognise the utility of CCTV for supporting law enforcement. To degrade the capacity may have an impact on police. It may well be that they will find it increasingly difficult to acquire the images that will help them investigate crimes."

The UK has one of the largest number of CCTV cameras in the world. The British Security Industry Association (BSIA) estimates there are between 4 and 5.9 million cameras, with around one in 70 publicly owned.

In a speech to the CCTV User Group conference this week, [Mr. Porter] warned of misuse of cameras in some local authority areas. He said: "I've seen councils in large towns like Blackpool and Derby stop monitoring their systems 24-7. My understanding is that this is not as the result of a review or public consultation but simply to save money. "And as austerity measures continue to bite on public space CCTV will we see a deterioration of standards and training?"

The role of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, as described by the man himself in a recent letter to all chief executives of local authorities:

The role of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner was created under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, appointed by the Home Secretary and independent of Government. As Commissioner I am required to ensure that surveillance camera systems, such as CCTV and ANPR, are used in accordance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (a copy is enclosed with this letter).

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:55AM

    by Nuke (3162) on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:55AM (#187139)

    How does "turning off" a camera save any significant amount of money? I would have thought the cost of a CCTV camera was almost all in its purchase, setting it up, and the cabling. Electricty consumption must be insignificant by comparison.

    The vast majority are not watched live, so no employment costs are saved either. They are generally only refered to in the event of a crime.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:07AM (#187140)

    Wots dat? Teh savigs unsignficnt? Woll than, camras goin bak ons mmedtly. Oooray fo Bg Brotha! Thanx, Nuke.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by zocalo on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:21AM

    by zocalo (302) on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:21AM (#187143)
    There is the CapEx vs OpEx angle - the savings from a shutdown would all be OpEx where as the CapEx would have been spent some time ago, and presumably from a pre-approved budget - given enough cameras, the power, maintenance and other running costs might add up to something worthwhile.

    Other than that, the only thing I can think of is storage; if the CCTV footage is retained in a non-degraded state for any significant amount of time (depending on use this will be at least one month, with twelve not being all that uncommon) and there are enough cameras, then maybe that might enable the SAN space to be reassigned to another use/project. It might also be worth bearing in mind that much of this kind of thing is outsourced in the UK, so chances are they are paying a monthly fee for storage used in DCs owned someone like ATOS, CAP Gemini, Fujitsu, etc., so there's a potential saving with that approach too.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!