British Traffic Wardens Issued CCTV Head Cameras

Rick writes "The Surveillance Society of Great Britain has taken another turn for the worse, as traffic wardens in Eccles, Manchester are being issued with CCTV head sets and given the legal power to impose fines of up to £80 for littering and other anti social behavior"

Comments

Not all that ominous IMO

[kennylogins]

Ubiquitous remote cams on the other hand are. This is only recording what the guy is actually seeing anyway. Consider that it could even moderate overzealous law enforcement. Kind of like the cams on cop cars in the US.

Re:Not all that ominous IMO

[MadMidnightBomber]

When the Met are able to shoot someone in the head in broad daylight, in front of witnesses and get away with it, lack of video footage seems to be a moot point.

Propaganda

[teh moges]

I understand the reason why this story is on the front page, and I understand that the reader might have concerns about the privacy implications. That doesn't mean that a "news story" should contain such forcing language:
The Surveillance Society of Great Britain has taken another turn for the worse
This sentence imposes the view that this move is obviously bad, when in fact, although I really hate privacy breaches and measures that remove privacy, I like this idea. It gives some legal weight to these fines, and will hopefully do their part to stop people littering mindlessly. While anti-social behaviour is a bit ambiguous in terminology, I'm sure that if you are given a fine with evidence on camera, then the reason can't be that frivilous.

Re:Propaganda

[StikyPad]

Moreover, I like the idea of police actions being recorded at all times. It (conceivably) increases accountability for the officers. This is not at all like posting cameras at fixed locations with loudspeakers, which offers no accountability for officers and plenty of opportunity for abuse.

Re:Propaganda

[gnuman99]

I like this much better than the entire CCTV surveillance. The camera just sees what the officer sees. So no blatant invasion of privacy as we see with the CCTV system.

Now if only they removed CCTV and use the cameras like this on every officer we should probably have less misconducts and brutality.

Re:Propaganda

[ceroklis]

Your point would be valid if these records were publicly accessible. I can imagine that if someone were to be abused by a policeman the video record wouldn't be available due to an unfortunate technical problem.

Re:Propaganda

[epee1221]

That sort of abuse probably wouldn't be curbed, but having cameras strapped on means the cop doesn't have much of an excuse if he can't show the court footage of you doing whatever minor infraction he says you did.

Re:Propaganda

[tftp]

"Nobody" here means the people who pay for the cameras - not you. The cameras do not add any quality to the warden's job, except as someone mentioned to monitor the warden. The cost of cameras does not make any sense, it would be better to just hire more wardens instead.

With regard to "only filiming what the officer can SEE", the cameras will indeed film everything that the officer can see, and also what the officer does not see. Do you register every car's license plate in your memory as the cars go by? I don't, but the camera does. Does the officer recognize every unfamiliar face? No; but a camera, combined with a complete face database, will. The addition of cameras creates an ability that the officers did not have before. I would compare it to giving officers an X-ray eyesight, where they could see through clothes - presumably to search for weapons. This helps in creating the class of enforcers who are legally and physically stronger than you, who are better organized and supported, who see more and know more... and who would be you to them? Anything but an equal citizen; a lowly plebeian, to be abused in any way. Police are already top dogs, unaccountable and unreachable and always right; the society does not need to elevate them any further.

Re:Propaganda

[tftp]

So why do I keep reading that citizens may not film police officers, but the opposite is just peachy?

Re:Propaganda

[Gordonjcp]

I can imagine that if someone were to be abused by a policeman the video record wouldn't be available due to an unfortunate technical problem.

Some of our police cars are fitted with cameras that record all the time the vehicle is in use (generally for traffic cars). If there is an incident (like, they crash it) where the video is unavailable, or doesn't match up with the telemetry from the car then the officers using the car are assumed to be at fault. It tends to make them even more careful drivers...

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I got the impression from the news last night, that the cameras were to stop the people who feel it's the traffic warden's fault they're parked on double yellow lines.

Not just that. They're also talking about using them to have these wardens issue fines for miscellaneous antisocial behaviour, such as littering. I don't know the situation in the locality here, but in many places these days, parking enforcement is done by target-driven, commercially-employed civilians, not police officers or similar officials. It's bad enough giving police officers the power to level on-the-spot fines, but giving it to other civilians is just a recipe for disaster.

Here in England, a huge number of people have a huge problem with parking laws and seem to believe that abuse and violence will get there ticket canceled.

For the record, I don't park illegally, and have never received a ticket. However, it's not hard to see why people feel aggrieved, when many local councils are (a) deliberately reducing parking opportunities and dramatically increasing the associated charges, in a fairly transparent move to penalise car drivers, and (b) using target-driven enforcement that allows no discretion to the warden (though to be fair, you usually can appeal afterwards if you'd rather waste several hours of your life than pay a small fine). Just remember, the next time your car breaks down and you pull it over to the side of the road to minimise the disruption to others before it can be reparied/towed, that there is no exemption in law for this, and you can be penalised for something you have no control over.

It's a bit like car tax: the government is very proud of its database (as its adverts keep telling us) and smart enough to find people to send them penalty notices if someone forgets to pay, yet somehow they can't reliably distribute the reminders (which are also necessary to pay in the most convenient ways, though apparently you can get an alternative form from a Post Office if you dig out four different bits of paperwork and take them all along in person). Although you can pay on-line, it takes about five days to get you a tax disc, and driving without displaying one (even if you've properly paid the tax) is an offence in its own right that can carry a 1k fine. Oh, and while they can have an entire on-line system for payment, and a robust database that has everyone's contact details, it seems to be beyond them to send an e-mail reminder a couple of days before the deadline to those who "forgot" (or just didn't get the reminder letter). Presumably this would save many drivers the embarrassment of being criminalised, but it would also cost the government all those lovely fines.

Such a culture inevitably breeds contempt for the law and those who enforce it, and it's the same with parking fines. Sure, ticket the antisocial gits who think their need to get takeaway pizza is more important than anyone else's need to get down a busy road in the rush hour, but someone who gets back to a pay-and-display car park five minutes late on a properly bought three-hour ticket shouldn't be treated as a criminal. Everyone makes mistakes, and laws that penalise everyone are broken.

Re:well

[darealpat]

Behaviour such as graffiti writing and dis-orderly conduct are considered anti-social behaviour, and its perpetrators won't have as easy a time with deniability, plausible or otherwise, when the pictures/video comes into play. Also the guy who always maintains that there was money in the meter will have a hard time of it. This tech sorely needed states-side...but won't happen for fear of invasion of privacy issues.

that much easier to watch the police...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it legal for you to wear a camera to monitor the police? I'd consider that a civil duty.

Quite apart from that, can the police be tracked by the signal from the head mounted camera and radio? Why yes, they can be. The more RF-emanating equipment the police carry, the easier it becomes to track them, know when they're coming, and evade them. RF profiling ain't that hard. Catch the litterbug, but miss the bank heist. Silly LEOs.

With great power comes...

[Phil246]

great opportunities to abuse it.
One council was forced to apologise for its 'litter wardens' lately after they fined a woman £80 for her son dropping *two* crisps onto the pavement - despite the mother picking the packet up.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/6665641. stm )

Cameras on heads is a daft idea which will similarly be abused by an already overbearing, orwellian government.

Why no mass uprising?

[jihadist]

Plato said that all democracies become authoritarian states through the fear of their people. Is that what we're seeing here? He also suggested that wealthy oligarchs would secretly control government, and buy huge blocks of votes when they needed power. This makes it easier for me to accept that 99% of the people out there passively accept this state of increasing surveillance and government power. We're more afraid of each other than of our governments, and so into total authoritarian dominion we go!

Re:well

[@madeus]

In my experience, cops in the UK are much less aggressive than those in the US (which also translates as not as good as actually dealing with criminals) and less inclined to actually abuse authority.

While we have more CCTV cameras than any other country, this means that even criminals caught on film go about unhindered. The cops are too lazy to look at the footage and follow up the crime, even if you try and press charges (whether it's footage you hand them from your business CCTV, public footage on a street CCTV cam or footage from a private CCTV cam - e.g. run by the local estate in the case of a privately managed housing complex).

In the defense of the police, even if they do catch them, they know (as do we) that it's a waste of time as they will be right back on the streets - we don't have any room in our jails (see the recent debacle about moving to 'prison ships' as an emergency measure to increase capacity) and so the judges - who are complicit in following 'goverment recommendations' that suggest not putting people in jail - will turn them free with some 40 hours community service at best.

So, we have one of the highest prision populations in Europe with the most street surveillance, but our streets are still full of hooligans and the police are unwilling to go after anything that isn't a glamerous / high profile crime (like arresting drug dealers, murderers, etc). The big problem we have is that successive governments seem to think installing CCTV cameras helps, which it manifestly doesn't.

I actually like the vagaries of our legal system, in that they are generally applied sensibly. European legislation also helps counter-act it by protecting the rights in the individual in a number of ways.

I agree with you on the 'moving to Canada' idea. As a less drastic option, maybe now the SNP (Scottish National Party) are in charge in Scotland (barely) and are keen to establish independence I can move up north (assuming they spend money on more sensible things, which they claim to be keen to do).

Re:well

[packeteer]

American police are definitely VERY aggressive. Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgsJU2d45Y
It shows at least 10 police setting up a sting operation to bust people for minor amounts of marijuana. The video shows the police arresting someone for attempting to purchase $10 of pot. When confronted by the police most of the people stop and put their hands up. The police then proceed to tackle from a full speed run. The people are pinned down and arrested. Now this is someone i want to see police do to violent criminals. Confront them, tackle them if they flee, book them and prosecute them. But what is this all about? Now i don't want to bring up the legality of marijuana other than this video is of very minor criminals who are having LOTS of police money spent in chasing them.

Police are supposed to enforce ALL laws regardless of their personal feelings and that is fine. This however is a waste of money. I don't want to dwell on one video too much because this aggressive attitude is all over. Tons of money is being spent in America setting up CCTV systems for police. Traffic lights are getting cameras put in place to enforce minor traffic laws. I realize there is a safety issue but that is really not what is at stake here. The police enforce more crimes that make them money (traffic tickets, drug charges where they can seize cash and property) and they spend less time on the safety of society as a whole. The police are underfunded and overstressed which leads to some meathead cops blowing off steam by roughing up marijuana users. The whole thing is very sad for the police and the criminals but the ones who really lose out are the normal members of society.

Re:well

[iminplaya]

...the ones who really lose out are the normal members of society.

But the big winner is the prison industry, for which these laws were designed to benefit. The law isn't about justice. It's about generating revenue. The only relation it has to society is its ability to squeeze more money out of that society. So, in some places you will spend more time in prison for drug law violations while they tell you that they are too full to incarcerate somebody for assault on a child!