An Imaginative Use For CCTVs

An anonymous reader writes "Everyone knows we're being watched by CCTVs everywhere — particularly in the UK — and virtually everyone (at least on Slashdot) complains about that fact. But have you ever stopped to consider the ways you can use all those CCTVs to your advantage? The Get Out Clause, an unsigned band from Manchester in the UK, did just that; they played in front of 80 different CCTVs around Manchester, and then asked for the video via Freedom of Information Act letters. (About 25% of the CCTV owners complied with the law and turned them over.) The result isn't too bad."

Comments

"Stars of CCTV"

[somersault]

Hard-Fi already has a song called Stars of CCTV, and I saw a video from another band that used CCTV cameras inside a store.. which I actually don't think was the hard-fi song. Anyway, kudos to these guys, the video looks pretty cool :)

And every move that I make
Gets recorded to tape
So somebody up there
Can keep me safe

We're the stars of CCTV
Making movies out on the street
Flashing blue lights, camera, action
Watching my life, main attraction
We're the stars of CCTV
Can't you see the camera loves me?

Music Video

[antdude]

Go to YouTube. :)

Is it just me...

[ChowRiit]

Is it just me, or is the important part of this not "band makes music video" but than 75% of organisations will deny a legitimate request under the Freedom of Information Act? Surely someone should be investigating this...

Re:Is it just me...

[julesh]

Is it just me, or is the important part of this not "band makes music video" but than 75% of organisations will deny a legitimate request under the Freedom of Information Act? Surely someone should be investigating this...

My suspicion is that the band doesn't actually understand the FIA. From the article:

They set up their equipment, drum kit and all, in eighty locations around Manchester - including on a bus - and proceeded to play to the cameras.

Afterwards they wrote to the companies or organisations involved and asked for the footage under the Freedom of Information Act.

[...]

Only a quarter of the organisations contacted fulfilled their obligation to hand over the footage - perhaps predictably, bigger firms were reluctant, while smaller companies were more helpful - but that still provided enough for a video with 20 locations.

The bus and "bigger firms" are referring to cameras operated by private organisations which have no legal obligation to respond to such a request. "Smaller companies" were presumably more helpful due to the fact that they didn't have lawyers to inform them of this fact.

Re:Is it just me...

[spooky ghost]

They probably would have got further making the request under the UK Data Protection Act.

Re:Is it just me...

[s0litaire]

Under the DPA; a company can only charge £10 per request, not £20.

Re:Is it just me...

[jrumney]

"Smaller companies" were presumably more helpful due to the fact that they didn't have lawyers to inform them of this fact.

Smaller companies' cameras are more likely to be outsourced to security firms, who, since it is their primary business, would be well versed in their obligations relating to cameras covering public spaces, and are generally quite lenient in making the video available. It is probably chargeable back to the client, so an additional revenue source for them, and not worth refusing over a technicality like the wrong Act being used to request the images.

Mark Thomas

[Allicorn]

British comic and political activist Mark Thomas ( http://www.markthomasinfo.com/ ) has been doing this kind of thing for years.

In 2000 (I think) he orchestrated a national "talent show" kind of competition where all entries had to be submitted as CCTV footage recovered from CCTV operators through measures under the Data Protection Act. Hilarious stuff :-)

Alli

Re:Mark Thomas

[Martian_Kyo]

You know, these ideas aren't as brilliant, as is the fact they actually went out and did it. I am sure millions of people thought 'wouldnt it be cool if we used these CCTV cameras for show?' and then got sober next morning, and never did it.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud this band as well as the comedian. So many good ideas, get wasted due to indolence. I am glad someone didn't waste this one.

Many people may have thought 'whats the big deal, I thought of doing that as well, it's no stroke of genius.'
I ask 'But did you do it?'

Kudos and applause to these guys, not only for the idea but for the balls and willingness to do it.

So if you got an idea, don't waste it. Do it, or at least tell someone who will do it. Don't let ideas die.

No I am not promoting some self-help book.

Re:Wait, CCTV owners?

[julesh]

I kind of just assumed that the government/law enforcement were the "owners". Who is the summary referring to as "the CCTV owners" ?

Almost all of the CCTV cameras that are frequently cited as being part of a "surveillance state" in the UK are owned and operated by private individuals, not the government. Specifically, most are run by shops. The article refers to the band using one on a bus.

Which raises the question -- why did the band expect the freedom of information act to apply to these? It only applies to government-run organisations, so the owners of the cameras in question had no obligation to comply with the request.

Re:Wait, CCTV owners?

[aproposofwhat]

It's not the FOI that applies in that scenario, but the Data Protection Act.

Dom Joly did a similar thing in his last series, IIRC.

Re:Really good

[njcoder]

Try this one.
http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080516-hoax-cctv-video-get-out-clause-clip

DPA not FoI

[Xest]

Under the data protection act you have the right to request a copy of any data stored on you so it's covered by that.

It could get expensive though as they're allowed to charge a processing fee which by the way I think absolutely stinks. Why should you have to pay to see if they've fucked up your data? The burden should be entirely on the data holders and if they get lots of malicious requests designed to cost them money in man hours then maybe they should reconsider the need to store data on you in the first place. At very worst the costs should be capped at something trivial like £0.50.

Re:Wait, CCTV owners?

[stupid_is]

He was encouraging the public to make films by staging scenes in front of CCTVs and then do a DPA request to get the footage. Stitch it all together and you have a (silent) feature film.

Re:Data Protection?

[asnare]

A common theme for privacy/data protection legislation is that the person whom the data is about has the right to:

1. Access that data;
2. Correct any mistakes in the data.

I get the feeling that the latter is normally the main goal here, but the former is required for that to be tenable.

Specifically in the UK, according to Wikipedia's entry on the Data Protection Act:

The Data Protection Act creates rights for those who have their data stored, and responsibilities for those who store or collect personal data.

The person who has their data processed has the right to

• View the data an organisation holds on them, for a small fee, known as 'subject access'
• Request that incorrect information be corrected. If the company ignores the request, a court can order the data to be corrected or destroyed, and in some cases compensation can be awarded.
• Require that data is not used in a way which causes damage or distress.
• Require that their data is not used for direct marketing.

So they may have tried to use the 'subject access' thing. Wikipedia also mentions that costs cannot exceed £10.

The story is about a month old

[simong]

and it's since transpired that most of it was fake. Taxis generally don't have CCTV in them. Yet.

Re:The story is about a month old

[TheRealJFM]

Exactly, I was about to suggest that it was fake.

I work as a part-time CCTV operator (while I'm at University), and the footage just doesn't look remotely real to me. Specifically the frame-rate is FAR too high, most CCTV systems have the frame-rate turned down quite low (say 3-5 FPS) to save space.

Second, not every CCTV camera is necessarily recording at the same time. While every camera probably CAN record, usually only key cameras will be set to record, maybe half or less, to save space on the system. The idea is that if anything happens the CCTV operator will record that camera, not that everything records all the time.

If a band asked me to look up their footage because of something like this, the footage they'd get back wouldn't look that good. This is a publicity stunt.

(and, as has already been pointed out, the Data Protection Act, not the Freedom of Information Act)

Video was a P.R. stunt..

[evilpresley]

This video was discussed over at Metafilter a few weeks ago, where Ericb discovered that the video was just a PR stunt.

Regardless, it was a pretty good one all the same!

Re:Wait, CCTV owners?

[glas_gow]

Where I live (Scotland), they can charge you with "breach of the peace", which is a remarkably elastic law that allows the Police to charge you for doing just about anything. Basically they approach you and tell you to stop doing whatever you are doing, and if you disagree, then you are breaching the peace, and they arrest you.

Re:Wait, CCTV owners?

[fork_daemon]

I live in the UK. The CCTVs on the Streets are definitely owned by the Council and some by the Met Police as well.

The ones outside the stores are their own. The one's inside places like stadiums, Malls are owned by the people who run these places.

Re:Wait, CCTV owners?

[the-stringbean]

Breach of the peace also applies in England and is equally 'elastic'. The current favourite by police at the moment (especially the PSCO wannabe cops) is the Terrorism Act 2006 which can be very easily stretched to include pretty much anything. I'm surprised that this stunt didn't get flagged up as suspicious (aka terrorist) behaviour.

Kudos to these guys for pulling this off though. How they managed to set up a drum kit on one of the Metrolink trams and on the travelator in Sainsbury's supermarket in Fallowfield (which is at a 45 degree angle!) is crazy.

No-one is watching

[dintech]

And the result of having all this CCTV? Reduced Crime? No. The average person on the street is definitely no safer.

The only change is that the feral brats who congregate in town centres now wear a sporting baseball cap and hooded top combination to escape identification on camera. Teenagers nowadays have never known life without CCTV anyway so it's not really any sort of deterrent to them commiting crimes. The camera on the street corner is pretty much a totemic reminder of their impunity and the impotency of the police.

I know friends and relatives over the years who where assaulted and have asked police to survey CCTV in order to catch the offenders. Usually there's some lame excuse about the camera not being on, pointing the wrong way, a technical fault or some equally daft reason. I suspect the police don't have the man power to go back over it or most likely they just plain can't be bothered. Just last year, this happened to my brother when he was attacked by a gang of thugs in Edinburgh.

Try not to worry too much about your rights being slowly eroded way by CCTV. It's security theatre on a massive scale and no-one's watching anyway...

Re:Correct version

[rockout]

I think I prefer the ironic tone in the original, as opposed to the ham-fisted approach in your "fix".