Add a comment May 21st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
And who could possibly disagree?
If a CCTV camera is there and watches my every move but, should I get mugged under it, if it is of no use in identifying and bringing the criminal to justice then it is utterly pointless and infringes my right to privacy.
If CCTV is used, it must be of high enough quality, in terms of positioning and video, in order to be used as incontrovertible evidence in court. Otherwise, why waste our money on them?
1 Comment May 31st, 2007 by ThunderDragon
CCTV is there to stop, or at least record, crime. Yet it appears that 90% of the CCTV cameras in Britain may well be breaking the law themselves. This is due to breaking the Data Protection Act and, in some cases, the Human Rights Act, according to CameraWatch:
“A new national advisory body for the industry, CameraWatch, which has the backing of the police and the Information Commissioner’s Office, claimed yesterday that the vast majority of CCTV is used incorrectly and could potentially be inadmissable in court…
“Our research shows that up to 90 per cent of CCTV installations fail to comply with the Information Commissioner’s UK CCTV code of practice, and many installations are operated illegally. That has profound implications for the reputation of the CCTV and camera surveillance industry and all concerned with it.” (The Times)
It’s not a good thing that a lawyer “could drive a horse and cart” through most CCTV evidence.
I don’t like the profusion of CCTV cameras across the country, especially when they want to give the cameras speakers and microphones as well, but since the cameras are there, they should at least be able to catch and convict any criminals they record!
As the CCTV cameras are there, they should at least do their jobs properly and be admissible in court as evidence. Otherwise they have no positive role at all.
Source: The Times
