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).
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:55AM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:07AM
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
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!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:14PM
Switching CCTV-es off to save money? Good God, where's this world going, violating the privacy doesn't pay anymore?...
I still remember the good old times when a honest mobster could get good advantages for, say, some little discretion [wikipedia.org]. Did they forget how to do it or is recession so deep the protected can't pay for the rendered services no matter how many turns you put on their arms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:33PM
"Oh my God - turning off CCTV's may lead to a CRIME WAVE!"
Well, that's the public excuse for being alarmed, anyway. Actually, if the councils are saving money to the tune of 1/4 million pounds each, that means that some particular businesses are suddenly not getting that income. OH! HORRORS!! ECONOMIC DOWNTURN!!
Wonder if some of those companies will hire thugs to increase crime in those areas where CCTV has been turned off, to convince the councils to turn them back on?
"It would be a shame if something happened to your pretty little neighborhood, Council Person."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:47PM
If you have a "Surveillance Camera Commissioner", you've gone too far... you've been too busy asking whether it could be done instead of asking whether it should be done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:56PM
Or at least my prestige and pay increases.