Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: neegel on February 20, 2009, 05:40:05 PM
-
Does anyone know what the camera is for that has just been installed on Hibbert Lane on a lamp post out side the college ???
-
It seems to be focused straight down Brindley Ave. If someone were to ring the council and ask maybe we will find out. I bet you will have to quote the freedom of information act or the RIPA act as they are not all that free with the info. I know that Stockport has deffinately used the RIPA Act to detect and prosecute certain offences.
-
Alexi Mostrous and Richard Ford
Laws that allow officials to monitor the behaviour of millions of Britons risk “hardwiring surveillance” into the British way of life, the country's privacy watchdog has warned.
Richard Thomas told The Times that “creeping surveillance” in the public and private sectors had gone “too far, too fast” and risked undermining democracy.
The Information Commissioner warned that proposals to allow widespread data sharing between Whitehall and the private sector were too far-reaching and that plans to create a giant database of every telephone call, e-mail and text message risked turning everyone into a suspect. “In the last 10 or 15 years a great deal of surveillance in public and private places has been extended without sufficient thought to the risks and consequences,” said Mr Thomas, 59. “Our society is based on liberty and democracy. I do not want to see excessive surveillance hardwired into British society.”
He criticised proposals going through Parliament to allow mass data sharing between government departments and the private sector. Campaigners have claimed that Section 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill would enable the transfer of health and tax records to private companies such as insurance firms and medical researchers.
Last year Mr Thomas — who became head of the independent body charged with safeguarding privacy and freedom of information in 2002 — recommended to ministers that data sharing be allowed only in carefully defined circumstances such as law enforcement, improving public services and for research. They ignored his advice. The Bill “needs to be narrowed”, Mr Thomas said. He called on Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to write into it that “anything to justify a data-sharing order has to come explicitly under one of those headings”.
Whitehall sources told The Times yesterday that Mr Straw would amend the Bill in the next few weeks to meet Mr Thomas's criticisms. Previously Mr Straw's department had maintained that there were sufficient safeguards, including a requirement for parliamentary approval for each data transfer.
The Bill also gives the Information Commissioner the power to investigate public bodies without their consent where there has been a suspected breach of data protection law. Mr Thomas complained that the powers did not extend to private companies.
Other government plans also risked undermining people's right to privacy, Mr Thomas said. Of the Home Secretary's proposal to build a database to store information currently held by internet service providers and telephone companies, Mr Thomas said: “A government-run database of the communications of all citizens, every phone call, every e-mail, every text, every internet use; a database of all those activities held by the Government would be a step too far for the British way of life.”
He dismissed Jacqui Smith's assurances that officials would have access only to data on who had contacted whom, rather than the content of the communication. “That A has telephoned B on a particular date from a particular location is actually quite intrusive,” he said. “If an MP logged on to a site selling Viagra, that tells you quite a lot. If a 16-year-old girl goes on to a website about abortion that tells you an awful lot about her too. I don't think there's a black-and-white distinction between traffic data and content.”
Mr Thomas made clear that he did not object to the monitoring of those suspected of involvement in terrorism and serious crime. “But I think that's a very different situation from monitoring the communications of the entire population,” he said. “We've got to have a much clearer distinction between those who are suspects and everybody else and I think we're at risk of making everybody a suspect if we go too far down this road.”
Security services have insisted that modernising the capacity to store and search telephone and internet information is crucial if Britain's ability to combat terrorists and serious organised crime is to be maintained.
Mr Thomas said that forcing government officials to make specific requests every time they needed information — as they currently have to do - provided a crucial safeguard. “If you have a security service or a policeman making an application [to an internet service provider for records], at least each of those applications has to go through a process and is scrutinised by the ISP. That's very different from it all being done behind the closed doors of a governmental agency.”
His concern about the erosion of the right to privacy extends to social networking sites. People did not realise that information put on sites such as Facebook and MySpace could come “back to haunt them”, he said.
Another area of concern for Mr Thomas is the use of surveillance cameras: he criticised the police for pressing to have closed-circuit television cameras installed in pubs. “We've come out against the requirement for pub licensees to fit CCTV as a condition of their licence,” he said. “This is hardwiring surveillance into British pubs. It is unacceptable.”
He also expressed concern that even some schools were now installing cameras in the classroom. He said that it might be acceptable in the case of a particularly unruly class, “but to roll out cameras in all classrooms is unacceptable”.
The Information Commissioner added his voice to criticism of ContactPoint, a computer database containing details on every child in the country.
“I can see the benefits of a national database of children at risk ... I'm less convinced that you need to have a database of every child in the country. Is it not better to have fuller details of children known to be at risk and make sure that information is used properly?”
Other key government surveillance measures had been “pushed through” without proper scrutiny or parliamentary debate. Of a database of DNA gathered from crime suspects, he said: “Clearly, the DNA database was set up with insufficient public debate. Part of the problem was that such debate took place on the assumption that it would be expensive to run DNA tests. The costs have absolutely fallen and it has become a matter of routine. We have to re-examine the issue in the light of current technology.”
He also lamented the lack of debate over the creation of a North London database that records details of car numberplates for up to five years. Mr Thomas questioned whether the Government had the legal authority for this and asked whether the public recognised that millions of their daily journeys were now being monitored. “We have to scrutinise every proposal very closely indeed to ensure that none involves a step too far.”
from Times online
-
I have just noticed another camera, outside the garage on hibbert lane nea to the traffic lights for Stockport Road, this one is pointing up Hibbert Lane
-
Ordinary CCTV cameras ( as opposed to the ones on Hibbert Lane) are sprouting out all over Marple.There is one on Stockport Rd looking down Elmfield Drive, 2 or 3 on Bowdon Lane near the school. I spoke to one of the guys installing these and he stated they were for a traffic survey(honest) as we were "getting a new school or something" Asked about the other ones he denied any knowledge.He said they would be there for a week.
-
the ones on bowden lane def seem to be directed so they are looking at the really crap school parking that we have a problem wth round here.. not surprisingly it hasnt been that bad this week!!!
shame they werent put up last week cos they might have caught a glimpse of my mums burglar!!
-
This goes to show how easy it is for the big brother attitude to prevail. There is only the word of a workman that these cameras are for a "Traffic survey" The council never told anybody what was going on, the cameras could be for anything. Supposing they put cameras on the lamposts in your street? They obviously don't have to tell you why.What are the other type of cameras for?
-
It seems that all of these cameras are 'looking' along routes that school children would use to get to school. This makes sense as the council (?) would need to survey these routes to access the impact that school runs (people walking as well as driving) have on the local roads.
There are many types of CCTV cameras available from specialist CCTV companies which have different functions on them i.e. pan, tilt, zoom, fixed lens etc. Having not looked at any of the cameras but knowing about CCTV surveying I would guess that these cameras will just be a fixed focal length lens that are able to record things in focus between certain distances. The CCTV cameras that are in Market Street, Stockport Road and at the CO-Op are pan,tilt & zoom cameras which are operated by Stockport Police.
-
A camera at the junction of Constable Drive and Hogarth Road might be useful. It might stop all the parents parking on the double yellow lines that have been put there to make it safer for their children to get to school.
-
A camera at the junction of Constable Drive and Hogarth Road might be useful. It might stop all the parents parking on the double yellow lines that have been put there to make it safer for their children to get to school.
But if they don't park there, the kids may have to walk and that would mean them running the risk of being run over by bad drivers
Oh......
-
The 2 funny cameras on Hibbert Lane have been removed.
-
Surveillance Britain: Q&A
How many CCTV cameras are there in Britain?
No one knows. A figure of 4.2million is often cited but this is a very rough estimate based on two streets in South London seven years ago. Police are starting counting exercises to come up with a more accurate total.
When did CCTV first appear?
In 1994 the Conservative Government allocated £38.5million for 585 CCTV schemes but until then there was only a scattering of cameras across the country. Labour continued to fund CCTV and between 1999 and 2003 made £170 million available.
Related Links
Police turn mapmakers to count spy cameras
Every step you take, we'll be watching you
Does it work?
There is a continuing debate about the effectiveness of CCTV. There is some evidence that is helpful in reducing shoplifting and car crime. Many claim, however, that better lighting is just as effective or argue that cameras displace crime. There has been very little conclusive research.
Do you need special permission to put up a camera?
No. There are almost no legal obstacles to installing CCTV. In general, planning permission is needed only for putting cameras in listed buildings and in conservation areas.
Do you have a right to see images of yourself caught on CCTV?
Yes. Under the Data Protection Act you have a right to request to see footage of yourself. The images must be provided within 40 days and at a charge of no more than £10. However, cameras attached to private residences are not covered by the Act even if they overlook a public street.
Do the police have an automatic right to see CCTV footage?
The police can request CCTV footage without a warrant. In most cases those asked to hand over footage do so but, if a request is refused, police can go to court to apply for a warrant.
Who else can see the images?
Police can give images to the media to help with identification but footage cannot be released for entertainment purposes. If third parties are visible in images released by the police, their identities must be hidden if the images were taken in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy — for example, a doctor's surgery.
How long can the images be stored for?
The Information Commissioner recommends that images be kept for a month but there is no legal limit.
Does the owner have to give police footage from a camera even if it might incriminate him?
Police have the right to request footage, so destroying it after such a request could, theoretically, count as perverting the course of justice. However, as there is no legal obligation to keep footage, it would be difficult for them to prove that it had been deliberately destroyed.
Sources: Home Office; Justice Department; Information Commissioner
from Times online author not stated
-
This goes to show how easy it is for the big brother attitude to prevail. There is only the word of a workman that these cameras are for a "Traffic survey" The council never told anybody what was going on, the cameras could be for anything. Supposing they put cameras on the lamposts in your street? They obviously don't have to tell you why.What are the other type of cameras for?
If you look on the side of the box that the camera's are linked to it clearly states that the Boden Lane units are owned by "Count on Us" a nationally recognised traffic survey company. I wouldn't get too worried or dig out the conspiracy theories yet. Its either a set of camera's or an army of OAP's with clipboards sat out in the poaring rain for days collecting the same information.
-
They might be owned by that company but they were installed by SMBC workmen. It therefore looks like they were hired, at what cost to the tax payer.?
-
They might be owned by that company but they were installed by SMBC workmen. It therefore looks like they were hired, at what cost to the tax payer.?
How else would you propose to undertake a traffic count and survey of the area around Rose Hill school without having to use literally dozens of people? ???
I can't see what the problem is. I'm sure the people who live near the school will be pleased that the Council is taking the problem of school traffic and parking seriously, particularly in the light of the expansion proposals. Isn't that what we pay our council tax for?
-
From what I have been told the traffic survey results will be flawed as the cameras put people off parking where they usually do, obstructing peoples drives etc.
-
Surveillance powers designed to tackle terrorism have been used by local councils more than 10,000 times - for "crimes" as minor as littering.
Details disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act show that councils in England and Wales used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to investigate offences ranging from dog fouling to taxi overcharging.
The Liberal Democrats, who obtained the details, said it represented a fresh erosion of civil liberties and warned that Ripa was becoming a "snooper's charter".
The findings are based on a survey of 182 district and unitary councils in England and Wales which responded to a freedom of information request.
They showed that Ripa powers have been used on 10,288 occasions since 2004, but just 9% of those inquiries led to a successful prosecution, caution, or fixed penalty notice.
The alleged offences included littering, illegal street trading, and taking the fairy lights from a Christmas tree.
Lib Dem local government spokesman Julia Goldsworthy said that when Ripa originally became law, only nine organisations - including the police and security services - were allowed to use it. That has since been extended to 795 bodies.
"This Government sees civil liberties as little more than a temporary inconvenience. Slowly but surely, freedoms have been eroded," she said.
"We're now in a situation where dog fouling is considered enough to warrant surveillance by council officials.
"Unless Ripa is reformed, it risks becoming a snoopers' charter. Surveillance powers should only be used to investigate serious crimes and must require a magistrate's warrant."
from Press association author not stated
-
Quote from the Chief constable of GMP in his blog "There have been more reports this week about the surveillance society and the use of CCTV cameras and information databases. I think it is a good thing that these issues are being debated and the public are fully aware of the information being held on them. There are very good reasons why such databases, CCTV and other forms of technology are vital to the fight against crime. The public need to be sure however that the use of this information is properly controlled and proportionate and this matter needs to be fully debated and approved by parliament. Technology is opening up possibilities both for committing and preventing crime. We cannot uninvent these opportunities but we do need to ensure that the public feel that the power of the state - including that used through the police - is properly overseen and open to judicial oversight."
Peter Fahy
Chief Constable