Numberplate cameras may break privacy laws
Discussion
A very interesting article in the Times: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2270896,00.html
It's all very interesting, but the most interesting was the highlighted statement. Does it mean that cameras that are not visible and signed are themselves susceptible to challenge based on the same reasoning? Because while it's true that some van sites are signed, others are not, and it's certainly true that some are hidden. Jith? Paul?
Times said:
Numberplate cameras may break privacy law
By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent.
Laws to monitor the State's use of covert surveillance could allow evidence to be challenged in court
EVIDENCE gathered from a key technological weapon in the fight against crime could break human rights laws if used in court, the UK’s survellance watchdog said yesterday.
Sir Andrew Leggatt, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, warned the Prime Minister that evidence gathered from cameras that automatically read car numberplates may breach privacy laws.
He urged the Home Secretary to bring forward legislation to ensure that information gathered from the automatic numberplate system is in line with privacy regulations. He said in his annual report that automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) had proved to be very effective in crime reduction and a prime example of intelligence-led policing.
The system alerts police when a suspect numberplate passes before a camera. It is being used by forces throughout Britain to spot stolen cars, untaxed and uninsured drivers and vehicles suspected to have been used in crimes.
The annual report of the Metropolitan Police for 2005-06 said that in 12 months ANPR teams in London supported 80 operations involving gun-related crime alone, leading to 259 arrests.
The Met’s mobile ANPR intercept teams are reported to have made more than 3,000 arrests over the same period. Throughout Britain the cameras have taken more than 32 million readings, and as a result more than 100,000 motorists have been stopped.
Sir Andrew said in his report that the use of the cameras was vulnerable to challenge in court under laws designed to monitor the State’s ability to use covert surveillance against crime suspects and prevent unnecessary breaches of privacy.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000 requires police and local authorities to obtain authorisation for any operation involving intrusive surveillance. Authorisation is generally granted in relation to operations against specific suspects.
Sir Andrew said that if an ANPR camera were set up to record any of the large number of vehicles that may have been entered on police computers as being suspect — and particularly if the system was linked to Highways Agency records — it was “unlikely” that the operation could be authorised under the terms of the Act.
“There may well be human rights issues arising in connection with any use of private information to build up pictures of the movements of particular persons or vehicles,” he said.
“In such a case, the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained in this way would probably depend on whether its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.”
It was the unanimous view of the seven surveillance commissioners that existing legislation “is not apt to deal with the fundamental problems to which the deployment of ANPR cameras give rise”, the report said. “The commissioners are of the view that legislation is likely to be required to establish a satisfactory framework to allow for the latest technological advances.” Sir Andrew said that the omission of ANPR cameras from the Act was simply because the development and widespread use of the technology had not been envisaged when it was drafted. Speed cameras operated by police do not require authorisation under the Act because they are not hidden and drivers are alerted to their presence by signs.
Sir Andrew’s annual report shows that law enforcement agencies granted 23,628 directed surveillance authorisations in 2005-06, compared with 25,518 in the previous year.
By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent.
Laws to monitor the State's use of covert surveillance could allow evidence to be challenged in court
EVIDENCE gathered from a key technological weapon in the fight against crime could break human rights laws if used in court, the UK’s survellance watchdog said yesterday.
Sir Andrew Leggatt, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, warned the Prime Minister that evidence gathered from cameras that automatically read car numberplates may breach privacy laws.
He urged the Home Secretary to bring forward legislation to ensure that information gathered from the automatic numberplate system is in line with privacy regulations. He said in his annual report that automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) had proved to be very effective in crime reduction and a prime example of intelligence-led policing.
The system alerts police when a suspect numberplate passes before a camera. It is being used by forces throughout Britain to spot stolen cars, untaxed and uninsured drivers and vehicles suspected to have been used in crimes.
The annual report of the Metropolitan Police for 2005-06 said that in 12 months ANPR teams in London supported 80 operations involving gun-related crime alone, leading to 259 arrests.
The Met’s mobile ANPR intercept teams are reported to have made more than 3,000 arrests over the same period. Throughout Britain the cameras have taken more than 32 million readings, and as a result more than 100,000 motorists have been stopped.
Sir Andrew said in his report that the use of the cameras was vulnerable to challenge in court under laws designed to monitor the State’s ability to use covert surveillance against crime suspects and prevent unnecessary breaches of privacy.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000 requires police and local authorities to obtain authorisation for any operation involving intrusive surveillance. Authorisation is generally granted in relation to operations against specific suspects.
Sir Andrew said that if an ANPR camera were set up to record any of the large number of vehicles that may have been entered on police computers as being suspect — and particularly if the system was linked to Highways Agency records — it was “unlikely” that the operation could be authorised under the terms of the Act.
“There may well be human rights issues arising in connection with any use of private information to build up pictures of the movements of particular persons or vehicles,” he said.
“In such a case, the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained in this way would probably depend on whether its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.”
It was the unanimous view of the seven surveillance commissioners that existing legislation “is not apt to deal with the fundamental problems to which the deployment of ANPR cameras give rise”, the report said. “The commissioners are of the view that legislation is likely to be required to establish a satisfactory framework to allow for the latest technological advances.” Sir Andrew said that the omission of ANPR cameras from the Act was simply because the development and widespread use of the technology had not been envisaged when it was drafted. Speed cameras operated by police do not require authorisation under the Act because they are not hidden and drivers are alerted to their presence by signs.
Sir Andrew’s annual report shows that law enforcement agencies granted 23,628 directed surveillance authorisations in 2005-06, compared with 25,518 in the previous year.
It's all very interesting, but the most interesting was the highlighted statement. Does it mean that cameras that are not visible and signed are themselves susceptible to challenge based on the same reasoning? Because while it's true that some van sites are signed, others are not, and it's certainly true that some are hidden. Jith? Paul?
Edited by Peter Ward on Saturday 15th July 01:50
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff