Privacy in the UK

Dan Millar

J8 - 2012

Privacy in the UK
In the world today, there is one clear leader in the domain of privacy infringements through the medium of Close Circuit Television cameras, and that is the United Kingdom. In this small island, there are over 4 million cameras: thats one for every 14 citizens (Reeve, Tom)! To compare this with other cities, we can take the fact that there are 8 cities in the UK with more CCTV cameras than Paris (BBC CCTV stats). However, this and other methods of surveillance are acceptable in the UK, to prevent imminent crimes, to eliminate you from police investigations, and to provide evidence to convict criminals. A first reason surveillance is acceptable in the UK, is that it can help to stop crimes from happening. One medium that can help with this is called smart CCTV. Developed in 2011, it is capable of identifying suspicious behavior such as a man holding a gun, or smashing a window and could even track rioters across multiple cameras (Smart CCTV). Another thing that could help prevent crimes is the things that the new, spectacularly mishandled surveillance plans (Milliband, Ed). These plans will allow police to read texts, emails, and browsing histories. This could help to identify those aspiring to commit a crime, and planning with others. If someone, for example is looking at a weapons shopping page, the police can know. It is also proved that crime has dropped in certain environments due to CCTV. Although some will argue it is ineffective, the facts stand that there has been a massive drop in crime in places such as public transport and supermarkets that can be directly attributed to CCTV. The question is, is it worth it? A second reason surveillance is both necessary and acceptable is that it can eliminate you from police investigations. UK citizens do not trust their police force. Although they have done some remarkable things in their history, they have also been known to have a tendency to make up information. There are thousands of instances of this, but one clear one is the so called Guilford 4. These Irish nationals were jailed for 15 years in connection with IRA bombings. The only reason they got a guilty verdict in court was made up evidence by the police (Pallister, David). Another example is when a police marksman shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes in a crowded underground carriage. He was mistaken for a suicide bomber because crucial evidence was missed. He was innocent! Also, if youre mobile phones tracking says that you are not at the scene of a crime; it is probable you didnt

commit it! Surveillance is a good way to eliminate you from police investigations, and to prevent miscarriages of justice. Yet a third reason that surveillance is needed in the UK, is that it can provide evidence to convict criminals. Unlike many types of evidence, such as that of anonymous sources, it can be used in court. This is useful, because it can be key information in a court case. It can also be used to identify criminals. One fantastic case of CCTV evidence being used to identify criminals is the 7/7 suicide bombers, who were identified within hours of the attack (House of Commons). Unfortunately, they could not be stopped before they murdered 52 civilians. Also, in a world of social networking, people are a lot more obvious about what they are planning. Many do not realize that anything you spread around the internet, even if it just between you and your friends is available to the police, along with text messages, emails etc. However, sadly, making up evidence like this is very easy, such as in the case of the Birmingham 6, sentenced to over 15 years for a bombing they were innocent of (Birmingham 6). Surveillance, therefore, is a great thing to use to convict criminals, despite slight disadvantages. Without surveillance, there would be more criminals walking free and more innocent men in prison. This is through the facts that surveillance evidence can be used to prevent imminent crimes, can eliminate you from police investigations, and can provide evidence to convict criminals. Because of these three facts, I think limited surveillance is definitely acceptable in the United Kingdom and in other countries.

Works Cited
Pallister, David. Guildford 4: 10 years on an injustice still reverberates. 13/10/1999 Inocent. 29/05/2012 <http://innocent.org.uk/cases/guildford4/>. Reeve, Tom. How many cameras are there in the UK?. 11/03/2011 Security News Desk. 24/05/2012 <http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2011/03/01/how-many-cctv-cameras-in-theuk/>. "Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005." House of Commons. BBC. London, 31/05/2012 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_06_narr ative.pdf>. 'Smart' CCTV could track rioters. 23/08/2011 BBC. 24/05/2012 <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14629058>. The statistics of CCTV. 20/07/2009 BBC. 24/05/2012 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm>. UK web surveillance plans 'spectacularly mishandled'. 03/04/2012 BBC. 24/05/2012 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17598330>. "Birmingham 6." Innocent. 31/05/2012 <http://www.innocent.org.uk/index.html>.