Stop surveillance

Make it illegal for local government, private and public organizations to fit CCTV on public highways etc. and in areas used by the public e.g. buses and trains, shopping malls etc. unless there is public consultation and agreement. As to local and national government, the public should vote on any plans to watch our lives!!   This is not a Police State!!

Why is this idea important?

Make it illegal for local government, private and public organizations to fit CCTV on public highways etc. and in areas used by the public e.g. buses and trains, shopping malls etc. unless there is public consultation and agreement. As to local and national government, the public should vote on any plans to watch our lives!!   This is not a Police State!!

Increase domestic CCTV and register it with the police

Promote – with grants? – domestic CCTV, and force users to register their equipment with the police, and allow the police to use evidence from domestic CCTV.  Where available, give the police internet connection details so they can use the domestic CCTV registered near any incident they know is in progress via the internet.

Innocent bystanders are not threatened or restricted by CCTV, it frees them to be safe in a society where crime and anti social behaviour theaten us daily

Why is this idea important?

Promote – with grants? – domestic CCTV, and force users to register their equipment with the police, and allow the police to use evidence from domestic CCTV.  Where available, give the police internet connection details so they can use the domestic CCTV registered near any incident they know is in progress via the internet.

Innocent bystanders are not threatened or restricted by CCTV, it frees them to be safe in a society where crime and anti social behaviour theaten us daily

Travel Anonymously By Rail

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

Why is this idea important?

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

CCTV cameras

Nearly 200,000 motorists have been fined a total of £8m in the past year after being caught on CCTV cameras, according to a new report.

The report, from campaign group Big Brother Watch, says that more than 50 CCTV Smart cars are patrolling 31 council areas and raised the equivalent of £322,789 last year for each town hall that uses them.

The cars are used to film motorists who use bus lanes or who are judged to be driving without due care and attention.

The 25 councils that released data said they raised a total of £8,069,715 from 188,000 motorists between April 2009 and March 2010.

Dylan Sharpe, Campaign Director of Big Brother Watch, said, “The CCTVa very dangerous escalation in Britain's surveillance society.

  £8 million is an eye-watering amount to take in fines in just 25 councils.

It is surely only a matter of time before more councils start using these cars. The Coalition Government must act now and prevent that from happening.”

Why is this idea important?

Nearly 200,000 motorists have been fined a total of £8m in the past year after being caught on CCTV cameras, according to a new report.

The report, from campaign group Big Brother Watch, says that more than 50 CCTV Smart cars are patrolling 31 council areas and raised the equivalent of £322,789 last year for each town hall that uses them.

The cars are used to film motorists who use bus lanes or who are judged to be driving without due care and attention.

The 25 councils that released data said they raised a total of £8,069,715 from 188,000 motorists between April 2009 and March 2010.

Dylan Sharpe, Campaign Director of Big Brother Watch, said, “The CCTVa very dangerous escalation in Britain's surveillance society.

  £8 million is an eye-watering amount to take in fines in just 25 councils.

It is surely only a matter of time before more councils start using these cars. The Coalition Government must act now and prevent that from happening.”

Independent body to hold CCTV footage

The police have demonstrated that they can't be trusted with CCTV footage, as on many occasions when it might have provided evidence of wrong-doing by them, it has been "lost", "damaged" or they say the equipment just happened not to be working at the time (see the recent case of the two brothers at the Gaza protest, where the CCTV captured them just before and after they were assaulted, but apparently not at the time of the incident!).

I suggest that an independent body is set-up, with the power to seize and store CCTV footage after an incident (whether from public or private systems), removing this power from the police. This body can then make copies of this footage available to the police and solicitors.

Why is this idea important?

The police have demonstrated that they can't be trusted with CCTV footage, as on many occasions when it might have provided evidence of wrong-doing by them, it has been "lost", "damaged" or they say the equipment just happened not to be working at the time (see the recent case of the two brothers at the Gaza protest, where the CCTV captured them just before and after they were assaulted, but apparently not at the time of the incident!).

I suggest that an independent body is set-up, with the power to seize and store CCTV footage after an incident (whether from public or private systems), removing this power from the police. This body can then make copies of this footage available to the police and solicitors.

more CCTV coverage

cover every inch of the uk (excluding the inside of peoples homes) with cctv cameras, have the footage overseen by an independent agency that report any crime to the local authorities. None of the cctv footage is to be used for anything but serious crime prevention.

Why is this idea important?

cover every inch of the uk (excluding the inside of peoples homes) with cctv cameras, have the footage overseen by an independent agency that report any crime to the local authorities. None of the cctv footage is to be used for anything but serious crime prevention.

Remove all CCTV cameras from all quiet and/or suburban areas

There is an obvious case for CCTV cameras at rail and bus stations, on busy high-crime high streets, in busy high-crime city centre areas and at dangerous road intersections (e.g. near schools, old people's homes or hospitals) in order to deter speeding drivers and to catch criminals.

However there are worrying numbers of CCTV cameras in areas that have none of these attributes, such as quiet parades of shops and quiet suburban shopping streets, especially in low crime areas, and on A roads and B roads that aren't dangerous and aren't even used by much traffic.

All such CCTV cameras are a license for government snooping in some form or other, or are being cynically used to generate money by catching speeding drivers and should go.

Why is this idea important?

There is an obvious case for CCTV cameras at rail and bus stations, on busy high-crime high streets, in busy high-crime city centre areas and at dangerous road intersections (e.g. near schools, old people's homes or hospitals) in order to deter speeding drivers and to catch criminals.

However there are worrying numbers of CCTV cameras in areas that have none of these attributes, such as quiet parades of shops and quiet suburban shopping streets, especially in low crime areas, and on A roads and B roads that aren't dangerous and aren't even used by much traffic.

All such CCTV cameras are a license for government snooping in some form or other, or are being cynically used to generate money by catching speeding drivers and should go.

Stop the Police using unmanned aerial camera drones to monitor the public

 

To remove the legal right for Police to use unmanned aerial camera drones to monitor the UK public:

 

Since 2007, the Police have steadily introduced unmanned camera drones for routine monitoring of the UK population.  This scheme was initially introduced by Kent Police as a means to monitor maritime movements but documents obtained under FOI reveal that this was in part just a public relations exercise in preparation to use them for routine surveillance of all areas of public life.

 

The two main types of police drone surveillance:

1)  Remote controlled rotor blade cameras that hover 50m above the ground.  These silent cameras are at least visible but they have the disadvantage of further alienating the Police from the public they serve, as described by participants of the Olympic handover celebrations in the Mall.

2)  BAE UAV drones that fly for up to 15hrs at 20,000ft and are invisible from the ground.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

To remove the legal right for Police to use unmanned aerial camera drones to monitor the UK public:

 

Since 2007, the Police have steadily introduced unmanned camera drones for routine monitoring of the UK population.  This scheme was initially introduced by Kent Police as a means to monitor maritime movements but documents obtained under FOI reveal that this was in part just a public relations exercise in preparation to use them for routine surveillance of all areas of public life.

 

The two main types of police drone surveillance:

1)  Remote controlled rotor blade cameras that hover 50m above the ground.  These silent cameras are at least visible but they have the disadvantage of further alienating the Police from the public they serve, as described by participants of the Olympic handover celebrations in the Mall.

2)  BAE UAV drones that fly for up to 15hrs at 20,000ft and are invisible from the ground.

 

Remove 90% of all government surveillance cameras

 

This country is like a prison camp, people feel so invaded by largely useless and intrusive surveillance, that many of us would like to emigrate. These are not security cameras they are "secure the authorities" cameras. They will eventually be used against our citizens to prevent political dissent. Democracy cannot protect us from this if all parties become so ideologically similar that suppression of the people becomes their common aim. Take the cameras down in all but the most dangerous areas, or where people of a particular community request them.

Why is this idea important?

 

This country is like a prison camp, people feel so invaded by largely useless and intrusive surveillance, that many of us would like to emigrate. These are not security cameras they are "secure the authorities" cameras. They will eventually be used against our citizens to prevent political dissent. Democracy cannot protect us from this if all parties become so ideologically similar that suppression of the people becomes their common aim. Take the cameras down in all but the most dangerous areas, or where people of a particular community request them.

CCTV & Surveillance

CCTV – Abolish the law that allows the unjustified mass surveillance of innocent people by CCTV so that we can be free again. That includes all police, council, NHS and privately held CCTV as well as those in and on buses and trains. CCTV cameras are one of the most anti-social forms of behaviour that I can think of yet there is no one to whom we can turn to for protection. I am sick and tired of being treated like a criminal!

ANPR – Abolish the ANPR CCTV system on our roads for the same reason as above.

Surveillance – Abolish all laws which permit unwarranted surveillance of any kind and, guarantee the privacy of all communications. Stop spying on us!

 

*Note – I have already posted this idea but it was mixed in with a whole lot of others. I thought it would be better on its own.

Why is this idea important?

CCTV – Abolish the law that allows the unjustified mass surveillance of innocent people by CCTV so that we can be free again. That includes all police, council, NHS and privately held CCTV as well as those in and on buses and trains. CCTV cameras are one of the most anti-social forms of behaviour that I can think of yet there is no one to whom we can turn to for protection. I am sick and tired of being treated like a criminal!

ANPR – Abolish the ANPR CCTV system on our roads for the same reason as above.

Surveillance – Abolish all laws which permit unwarranted surveillance of any kind and, guarantee the privacy of all communications. Stop spying on us!

 

*Note – I have already posted this idea but it was mixed in with a whole lot of others. I thought it would be better on its own.

Using CCTV to catch motoring offences

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Why is this idea important?

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Traffic CCTV footage aired live to the public

Channel M (Sky 203) already provide a programme named 'Live Traffic Cameras' each morning (Mon-Fri) which broadcasts the morning traffic around Manchester while enabling viewers to listen to Manchester's main local radio station.

My idea would be to add to this and actually do this for all towns and cities; although it might be easier to do this encrypted over the internet than to try to negotiate more TV channels.

Why is this idea important?

Channel M (Sky 203) already provide a programme named 'Live Traffic Cameras' each morning (Mon-Fri) which broadcasts the morning traffic around Manchester while enabling viewers to listen to Manchester's main local radio station.

My idea would be to add to this and actually do this for all towns and cities; although it might be easier to do this encrypted over the internet than to try to negotiate more TV channels.

I want my Country back you dont own it we the people do!

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

CCTV Rules and Regs – a proposal for their use.

 

We will never stop the need for or use of CCTV because of its potential  postitive value in reducing harm to society through crime prevention and/or detection however for us all to haverfaith that it is not being abused I would advocate that a number of rules and regulations are prescribed before it can be used.

1) A national register (N.R.) of all CCTV cameras which can monitor areas to which the public have access be maintained. This register would include the exact location of the camera, its type and capabilities, thescopeof its viewing potential, its owner and contact details of a single point of contact within that organisation (SPOC) to whom enquiries could be addressed, the reason for its presence, and the potential collateral intrusion it causes to the public. Each camera would then be given a unique reference number. Access to the register would be limited to law enforcement agencys and other specified bona fida organisations who would themselves be registered as users. All these organisations would also  be required to have a SPOC to prevent misuse of access. Access would be granted at no cost on a documented need basis. This would allow users to quickly identify all cameras which may have imagery of interest in times of need (eg 7/7 bombings).

2) All persons/organisations wishing to use CCTV which looks into a public place must register with that N.R. for a 'one off fee' and another 'fee per camera per year'. This would help fund the N.R. and also focus users on whether they actually need to install as many cameras. Each user must nominate a SPOC for any enquiries regarding their CCTV system

3) All CCTV installations in public places should be subject to a planning consent process similar to that currently used to build, alter buildings, roads, etc, with the justification for the proposal to be set out on a notice at the proposed site and a method by which objections can be raised. This justification should be based on evidential needs, not just a wing and a prayer application. Sush justification is used for speed camera installations.

4) Each installed camera would have attached to it, either on the mounting post or wall, a notice giving its unique reference number, details of the owner and contact details, both a telephone number and a postal address. Where CCTV systems are installed in shops and shopping centres, the notices should be displayed at all entrances. When they are installed on vehicles, trains, etc, then the notice should be diplayed on the internal side of the entrance door or nearby.

5) The installation of a CCTV camera should be subject to review on a cyclical basis, perhaps 3 -5 years, and where evidence is present to suggest that it no longer performs the role for which it was installed (perhaps the geography around it has changed, for example) then it should be removed within a short time frame (28 days?).

6) A requirement of any system is that it must be in full working order (or else its useless and then only adds to peoples anxiety about being watched) or repaired within a short time frame (5 days?) or covered over.

7) Users of CCTV  which only look into private areas can register with the N.R for free. They would not be required to follow any of the other rules and regs.

Why is this idea important?

 

We will never stop the need for or use of CCTV because of its potential  postitive value in reducing harm to society through crime prevention and/or detection however for us all to haverfaith that it is not being abused I would advocate that a number of rules and regulations are prescribed before it can be used.

1) A national register (N.R.) of all CCTV cameras which can monitor areas to which the public have access be maintained. This register would include the exact location of the camera, its type and capabilities, thescopeof its viewing potential, its owner and contact details of a single point of contact within that organisation (SPOC) to whom enquiries could be addressed, the reason for its presence, and the potential collateral intrusion it causes to the public. Each camera would then be given a unique reference number. Access to the register would be limited to law enforcement agencys and other specified bona fida organisations who would themselves be registered as users. All these organisations would also  be required to have a SPOC to prevent misuse of access. Access would be granted at no cost on a documented need basis. This would allow users to quickly identify all cameras which may have imagery of interest in times of need (eg 7/7 bombings).

2) All persons/organisations wishing to use CCTV which looks into a public place must register with that N.R. for a 'one off fee' and another 'fee per camera per year'. This would help fund the N.R. and also focus users on whether they actually need to install as many cameras. Each user must nominate a SPOC for any enquiries regarding their CCTV system

3) All CCTV installations in public places should be subject to a planning consent process similar to that currently used to build, alter buildings, roads, etc, with the justification for the proposal to be set out on a notice at the proposed site and a method by which objections can be raised. This justification should be based on evidential needs, not just a wing and a prayer application. Sush justification is used for speed camera installations.

4) Each installed camera would have attached to it, either on the mounting post or wall, a notice giving its unique reference number, details of the owner and contact details, both a telephone number and a postal address. Where CCTV systems are installed in shops and shopping centres, the notices should be displayed at all entrances. When they are installed on vehicles, trains, etc, then the notice should be diplayed on the internal side of the entrance door or nearby.

5) The installation of a CCTV camera should be subject to review on a cyclical basis, perhaps 3 -5 years, and where evidence is present to suggest that it no longer performs the role for which it was installed (perhaps the geography around it has changed, for example) then it should be removed within a short time frame (28 days?).

6) A requirement of any system is that it must be in full working order (or else its useless and then only adds to peoples anxiety about being watched) or repaired within a short time frame (5 days?) or covered over.

7) Users of CCTV  which only look into private areas can register with the N.R for free. They would not be required to follow any of the other rules and regs.

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by removing the general monitoring of the population of the UK

Stop the routine monitoring of people by CCTV, Automatic Number plate recognition, facial recognition technologies, Travel cards i.e. Oyster, Chips, storing of emails, tracking of Internet sites visited, tracking countries visited by people, storing of text messages etc. To halt implementation of new technologies around facial recognition or other methods to monitor and log the public’s movements.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the routine monitoring of people by CCTV, Automatic Number plate recognition, facial recognition technologies, Travel cards i.e. Oyster, Chips, storing of emails, tracking of Internet sites visited, tracking countries visited by people, storing of text messages etc. To halt implementation of new technologies around facial recognition or other methods to monitor and log the public’s movements.

Strict Regulation On Proliferation of CCTV

There are more CCTV cameras in the UK than any other country in Europe, there aim is to prevent antisocial behaviour and reduce crime. Studies have shown(1,2) that this is not the case and crime is mearly displaced by them at best, whilst ordinary citizens go watched wherever they go about there business. Stric regulation could curtail the number of security cameras and allow people to go about there business with some anonymity.

Surveillance has gone too far, other cities in Europe manage lower crime and do not have nearly as many cameras even in sensitive areas such as banks and airports. Why do we need them here when they are costly and ineffective?

Why is this idea important?

There are more CCTV cameras in the UK than any other country in Europe, there aim is to prevent antisocial behaviour and reduce crime. Studies have shown(1,2) that this is not the case and crime is mearly displaced by them at best, whilst ordinary citizens go watched wherever they go about there business. Stric regulation could curtail the number of security cameras and allow people to go about there business with some anonymity.

Surveillance has gone too far, other cities in Europe manage lower crime and do not have nearly as many cameras even in sensitive areas such as banks and airports. Why do we need them here when they are costly and ineffective?

Stop Councils Snooping on Individuals

Amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200 to ensure that it is used solely for

counter-terrorism purposes and not by Local Councils for spying on individuals for minor

contraventions of the law.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200 to ensure that it is used solely for

counter-terrorism purposes and not by Local Councils for spying on individuals for minor

contraventions of the law.

Scrap the nanny state

Get rid of every piece of legislation which is designed to watch us, monitor us, tell us what to do, to scare us, and to decide how each of us should live our lives.

Scap all the registers, lists, records and devices used to control our lives.

Return the right of freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom to believe what we want.

Some of us had relatives who died for all these freedoms – give these freedoms back to us.

Stop interferring with our lives in our own homes, and give us back the right to defend them.

And for goodness sake get rid of all this 'political correctness' rubbish.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of every piece of legislation which is designed to watch us, monitor us, tell us what to do, to scare us, and to decide how each of us should live our lives.

Scap all the registers, lists, records and devices used to control our lives.

Return the right of freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom to believe what we want.

Some of us had relatives who died for all these freedoms – give these freedoms back to us.

Stop interferring with our lives in our own homes, and give us back the right to defend them.

And for goodness sake get rid of all this 'political correctness' rubbish.

Repeal or Amend ‘ RIPA’ (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act)

Under anti-terrorist laws the powers of Covert Surveillance was extended to a large range of State organizations, including Local Councils. Even organizations to which you may owe money to.

The threshold of who can authorize surveillance is considerably lowered; Previously these powers could only be authorized by Senior officers in Police and Security Services and the Home Secretary.

The purposes for which it can be used for have been greatly extended

Councils have been using these powers in a major way for a whole range of low level crimes and misdemeanours (Even ‘Dog Fouling’ ) . I am sure you have read other stories in the Press.
 

One family was watched for a month, by Council agents from  cars, filmed, schedule recorded, followed on the School Run etc. Why? To make sure that they weren’t cheating on their School Application Form.
 

The offending article is literally two lines in a paragraph. (Sorry but I lost the files on my Laptop so you will have to check it out yourself.)
It truly is The Devil In the Detail.

Without Repealing or Amending this section of the Bill it is a waste of time.The relevant bill is named; ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act’ (RIPA)


Ministers saying ,it should be regulated better will not make the fundamental change necessary. After all, regulations can change at whim, but laws are much harder to change.

 

.


 

Why is this idea important?

Under anti-terrorist laws the powers of Covert Surveillance was extended to a large range of State organizations, including Local Councils. Even organizations to which you may owe money to.

The threshold of who can authorize surveillance is considerably lowered; Previously these powers could only be authorized by Senior officers in Police and Security Services and the Home Secretary.

The purposes for which it can be used for have been greatly extended

Councils have been using these powers in a major way for a whole range of low level crimes and misdemeanours (Even ‘Dog Fouling’ ) . I am sure you have read other stories in the Press.
 

One family was watched for a month, by Council agents from  cars, filmed, schedule recorded, followed on the School Run etc. Why? To make sure that they weren’t cheating on their School Application Form.
 

The offending article is literally two lines in a paragraph. (Sorry but I lost the files on my Laptop so you will have to check it out yourself.)
It truly is The Devil In the Detail.

Without Repealing or Amending this section of the Bill it is a waste of time.The relevant bill is named; ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act’ (RIPA)


Ministers saying ,it should be regulated better will not make the fundamental change necessary. After all, regulations can change at whim, but laws are much harder to change.

 

.


 

Local Authority CCTV

Whereas I agree that some councils have abused their right to install covert CCTV, by putting them in bins or watching people taking their children to school, it would be counter productive to remove the right for local authorities to install CCTV

 I work for a local authority community safety team and fit covert CCTV at the request of local residents to try to find those responsible for painting graffiti on their property, damaging their walls, gardens or cars etc.

 None of these would be serious enough for Police to install CCTV.

 Recently we fitted a camera for an 83 year old lady. Youths playing football in the street would often kick the balls into her garden and trample on her flowers to get them. She was very upset and as she had limited mobility her garden was her only enjoyment.

 

Police had made enquiries but could not identify those responsible. We fitted a camera just looking from her window at her front gate. We identified two youths, spoke to their parents and the problem was solved. No one was arrested or criminalised.

 Surely that cannot be an invasion into those young people’s civil liberties.

 Please consider leaving the power for local authorities to install CCTV, at resident’s request and in consultation with Police, for crime and disorder purposes.

Why is this idea important?

Whereas I agree that some councils have abused their right to install covert CCTV, by putting them in bins or watching people taking their children to school, it would be counter productive to remove the right for local authorities to install CCTV

 I work for a local authority community safety team and fit covert CCTV at the request of local residents to try to find those responsible for painting graffiti on their property, damaging their walls, gardens or cars etc.

 None of these would be serious enough for Police to install CCTV.

 Recently we fitted a camera for an 83 year old lady. Youths playing football in the street would often kick the balls into her garden and trample on her flowers to get them. She was very upset and as she had limited mobility her garden was her only enjoyment.

 

Police had made enquiries but could not identify those responsible. We fitted a camera just looking from her window at her front gate. We identified two youths, spoke to their parents and the problem was solved. No one was arrested or criminalised.

 Surely that cannot be an invasion into those young people’s civil liberties.

 Please consider leaving the power for local authorities to install CCTV, at resident’s request and in consultation with Police, for crime and disorder purposes.