Home Office Launch Head Cameras, Security Options

[AndyFox]

Hi All

it's been a bit slow on the forums so thought I would post this.

On Thursday 12th July the Home Office will be launching their guidance on the use of Body Worn Video equipment for the Police. As you may know we have sold over large volumes of units around the Uk already, largely into Police and security industries.

The conference in Plymouth will also announce the findings on the pilot project, conducted by Plymouth Police from Oct 06 to Mar this year.

The intial report for the first 10 weeks produced some amazing statistcs so it should make intersting reading. the first rport is published here - http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operationa...mera/?version=1


Expect news and press artciles on the subject on Thursday and Friday.

[Doktor Jon]

Many thanks for that Andy (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

I guess I know what I'll be reading up on this weekend (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Mick]

Interesting report - though I do note it is all marked as a DRAFT !

[Doktor Jon]

I still haven't managed to find time to read the report (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) , but I can guess who might be moderately cheered by the news that the Home Office is going to provide a further £ 3 million for funding expansion in the use of police borne head cams ....

More info here

[AndyFox]

we are indeed extremely busy!!!

[Doktor Jon]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Good to know that you're keeping out of mischief Andy.

The curious thing about this story, is that having been very widely reported right around the world ( I've seen stories in the US, Canada, Australia, India, and various parts of Europe), I haven't actually seen a huge amount in the UK press.

I'd have thought if anything would have fired a journalists imagination, it would have been an impending outbreak of CopperCams, but apparently it's just soooo passe (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif)

[AndyFox]

yes Jon you're right - internationally things have gone crazy in the press - I gues we are so used to being 'surveilled' that we just see it as a natural progression.

[Doktor Jon]

After the "Talking CCTV" story a couple of months back, this is the second most reported CCTV piece I've seen around the world this year.

I think the Home Office kept it a bit quiet here, but an Associated Press reporter picked up on it, and that's the story that has been repeated ad nauseum in the foreign press.

Oh well, still got the Home Office 'CCTV Strategy' launch to look forward to ... whenever that happens (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[AndyFox]

yes thats right Jon, the AP piece seems to have gone everywheref rom here to mars. What it has done though is open so many doors in the US for us - but it is a bit strange that it has not been so widely lauded in the UK. Maybe it's a case that we have a new Home Sec so they don't want to f things up if it goes wrong - not that it will.

anyway its going great and the HO report backs up the use of the technology so can;t ask fro anymore really.

[Mick]

Here's an interesting development.

I have been reliably informed that some club doorman are now using head - cams ! .................... And I fully understand why. I am sure it can assist with their personal safety.

However, I suspect that they are working as employees of the club / pub and I am not so sure that their employers fully understand the issues involved with using such technology. Because of this I am not confident that they are treating the captured video and audio product in accordance with the principles contained within the Data Protection Act ?

Up and down the UK the police are working really hard to ensure that their use of head- cams, and particularly the processing of the head-cam product is lawful.

This of course requires a secure, well kitted out, and appropriately staffed back office facility, to download the images and audio captured. A robust audit trail associated to the product, and detailed business processes, concerning why and how long the product is kept for.

Most it appears are treating the video and audio product as Sensitive Personal Data, and so security of this product is paramount.

To do it right requires a lot of thought and resourcing, and a thorough understanding of all the issues involved at a senior level (those holding the purse strings).

Do the pubs and clubs have everything in place to cover all these things off ?

How long before we see some nice juicy head-cam footage on YOUTUBE ? ............... Either from the police or a doorman (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Will the SIA have to introduce a new doormans licence to cover off the head-cam issue ?
Will they need to update their training ?
And what will the ICO have to say about this matter ?
I wonder how many pubs and clubs using head-cams, have registered with the ICO?

Interesting times.

[Doktor Jon]

Here's an interesting development.

I have been reliably informed that some club doorman are now using head - cams ! .................... And I fully understand why. I am sure it can assist with their personal safety.

I remember reading about this some time ago, but for the life of me, I can't remember where (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

No doubt someone with a bit more inside knowledge will be along to confirm this, at some point ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistling.gif)

As you rightly suggested Mick, it is quite probable that strapping a camera on a 'door operative' is perceived as a simple solution to their many and varied problems, but with little if any regard to the wider legal implications, this possibly being nothing more than a minor irritation for the bosses.

As this whole area of video surveillance is still relatively new, and many would agree uncharted waters, we'll just have to wait and see what ... develops (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif)

That said, I wonder how many pubs and clubs have actually notified under the DPA, simply for using conventional CCTV?

[Mick]

The main reason why I mention this (head-cams use by club doorman) is because of this :-

A couple of years ago now (when SIA licencing first came in for 'contracted-in' PSS CCTV operators) , I remember debating with others, the admissibility of CCTV evidence (product) captured by 'contracted-in' un-licenced CCTV operators. Individuals with no training and no understanding of the codes of practice and legislation associated to the use Of PSS CCTV.

The general conclusion we the users reached, was that the evidence (CCTV product) would be submitted, and it would be up to the judge in each individual case, to listen to any objections raised and decide on admissibility issues.

Never-the-less, if the product were to be regarded as admissible, the defence team would no-doubt seek the opportunity to cross-examine the CCTV operator / control room supervisor /manager with such questions as :-

"What training have you had ?"

"Explain the Lost Contact Drill ?"

"Explain the terms MONITOR / DETECT / RECOGNISE / IDENTIFY ?"

"Describe the audit trail associated to the VHS tape / DVD?"

" Do you have your own Code Of Practice concerning your PSS CCTV operation?"

All designed to try and highlight a non-professional operation and so caste doubt in the minds of the jury.

IMHO there are similar (perhaps more serious) concerns, re the use of the Head-Cam product captured by club doorman.

At the end of the day, in many cases the captured video and audio (Head - Cam) product will end up being a key piece of evidence (possibly in a murder enquiry).

The stringent processing of this video and audio product as sensitive personal data, in line with the DPA, PACE (and the ICO's , CCTV code of practice) does go a long way in ensuring that the evidential product has the nesessary audit trail tied to it, robustly supporting the products confidentiality integrity and availability.

As mentioned above with respect to un-licenced PSS CCTV operators, here again clever defence teams will seek to 'muddy the waters' and if they can show that the evidential product was not treated in accordance with legislation and codes of practice etc, they will do so, and plant seeds of doubt (particularly concerning the integrity of the product) in the minds of the jury.

[Lee Tracey]

I have just picked up on this forum and noted the string about body-worn cameras & recorders - nothing new for some time. But there has been a lot of activity. The Home Office has funded a six month trial in association with Devon & Cornwall Police and then put up £3 million as a "dip-into" fund for every force to purchase units to carry out their own trials. The MET is about to start its own six month trial. Devon & Cornwall then put out a tender document with a requirement specification but has now cancelled the tender. Other forces are in "hurry-up" mode to get a piece of the £3 million and buy some body-worn camera kits, but the crazy terms of the Home Office state that the money has to be spent by March 31st, but have also stipulated that the goods have to be delivered also by March 31st. A great number of other forces have not even managed to get their tenders out yet. So the probable first date that orders can be placed by many forces is March 1st to 10th. The goods, about 100 systems per force, have then to be delivered by March 31st.

My experience of the manufacturing industry makes that an almost impossible task. It is fair to say that the goods of one particular manufacturer will find favour with the majority of forces so out of the potential 3000 units could get an order for 600 or so, 120 as minimum at a cost between £800 to £1,700.

No firm, in my opinion, will have made and stocked goods to the value of half a million pounds to 1.2 million pounds on the chance that they might get an order. So the delivery date is impossible and the large experienced companies will know this and also know the cost of penalty clauses and the failure to deliver, so will not tender ( remember the cancellation of the Devon & Cornwall tender ). Small new start-up companies might, out of ignorance, go ahead and tender, except that they cannot.

Pre-qualifications to tender are that the company has to produce audited accounts for three years and has also to list how many one legged lesbian Eskimo's they employ. Start-up companies cannot do this so cannot tender. They might, however, be able to get a long established company to tender on their behalf - thereby almost doubling the cost to the taxpayer.

Then comes the other problem: The Home Office spec is for police requirements but the devices already on the market, such as the Archos AV500, are designed for the domestic leisure market and just will not cut the mustard. The Archos AV500 can be bought from Argus for about £400 might be obsolete now though ) This unit was renamed and sold to Devon & Cornwall and others for £1,700 each or near that figure.

There are some home grown units on their way, in development, but they will not be fully production engineered and ready for production until about May 1st 2008. So these units cannot be included in the £3 million before March 1st buy, unless some fools want to take the risk of making them and delivering before March 31sr.

The probably outcome? Some forces will go ahead and place orders for plastic domestic media player toys that will be turned into rubbish in a short time. The £3 million will be wasted and the purchases will have to start again in May 2008 to April 2009.

The only other possibility is that one of the new start-up designs gets the order and the failure to deliver by March 31st is ignored and they are allowed to deliver in June without penalty - somewhat unfair to others who did not tender as they knew they could not make the deliery date.

What a wonderful world!

[Doktor Jon]

Hi Lee Tracey,

A very warm welcome to you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup_anim.gif)

I know this subject is of great interest to you, as indeed it is to others on the forum. The background information on the tendering process doesn't really surprise me that much, given the historical reluctance for government departments that care so much about small businesses, to actually place any orders with them.

I remember supplying some kit to the MoD about 25 years ago, and the hassle involved was just unbelievable. I swore at that time, I wouldn't get involved again, and thus far I've been lucky.

No doubt others will be along at some stage to comment on your comments (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif)

Incidentally I've had to make a very minor edit to your post, just so we don't all end up spending the rest of the year in meetings with our legal advisors (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I'm sure you'll find a number of other very interesting threads on the forum if you manage any time to have a look around.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Jon

[Mick]

.............. Other forces are in "hurry-up" mode to get a piece of the £3 million and buy some body-worn camera kits, but the crazy terms of the Home Office state that the money has to be spent by March 31st, but have also stipulated that the goods have to be delivered also by March 31st. A great number of other forces have not even managed to get their tenders out yet. So the probable first date that orders can be placed by many forces is March 1st to 10th. The goods, about 100 systems per force, have then to be delivered by March 31st.......................

I have heard that the H/O have recognised the madness re this sort of time-line, and now the time pressure is off (it looks like it is possible to roll the money over to the next financial year). I have yet to hear this officially but my source has always been A1.

[Lee Tracey]

Hi Mick:

I really hope you are right, but I have fears. I was with one Police Force on Thursday last and they had just asked this very question of the H/O and had a dogmatic NO. I am in the process of development of my version of a body=worn system and have the electronics finished and working fine at D1 - 25 IPS and 10 Mbits/s and lip-sync audio recording to a 38 GB Flash pen drive. I am just starting on the case and aesthetic design and do not expect to be secure with solid pre-production demo units until May 1st or perhaps a few days earlier, so March 31st was an impossible target for me. May holds out much better prospects so I dearly hope you are right. Though I wonder what will happen to those forces rushing to tender now.

Lee Tracey

[Mick]

I'm pretty sure the information is correct - So that's the good news.

Now the bad news -

The loss of HMRC data (and all the other data losses) has resulted in the SECURITY of data getting looked at quite closely in the policing world (and I guess other government departments) .

The ICO has issues some stuff about protection of personal data -

The ICO recommends that portable and mobile devices including magnetic media, used to store and transmit personal information, the loss of which could cause damage or distress to individuals, should be protected using approved encryption software which is designed to guard against the compromise of information.

The full bumph is here -
http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/news_and_vi...encryption.aspx

Here's the important bit -

The Information Commissioner has formed the view that in future, where such losses occur and where encryption software has not been used to protect the data, enforcement action will be pursued.

Now as CCTV practitioners, we may need to start thinking about such protection in relation to CCTV product !

This is particularly pertinant as regards portable (easilly lost) Head-Cam kit.

Also, because Head-Cam Product captures audio as well as video, there are times when the product could well be regarded (by some) as Sensitive Personal Information.

Some constabularies are taking the view that HMG's Protective Marking Scheme (Restricted / Confidential / Secret / Top Secret) should be applied to the captured Head-Cam Product. Others are sticking simply to the Data Protection definitions of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information.

Whatever view you take, I strongly suspect that manufactures will be expected to include some form of encryption and /or strong password protection for the Head-Cam product.

And, this is not just impacting on the police use of Head-Cams. It will very probably impact other organisations that RECORD CCTV product (containing any personal information) and especially if they pass on (transport) the product to others.

Interesting Times !

[Doktor Jon]

The ICO recommends that portable and mobile devices including magnetic media, used to store and transmit personal information, the loss of which could cause damage or distress to individuals, should be protected using approved encryption software which is designed to guard against the compromise of information.

The Information Commissioner has formed the view that in future, where such losses occur and where encryption software has not been used to protect the data, enforcement action will be pursued.

Now as CCTV practitioners, we may need to start thinking about such protection in relation to CCTV product !

This is particularly pertinant as regards portable (easilly lost) Head-Cam kit.

Whatever view you take, I strongly suspect that manufactures will be expected to include some form of encryption and /or strong password protection for the Head-Cam product.

Very interesting stuff Mick, thanks for that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Now I may be way off the mark here, but I would imagine that if a decent level of encryption needs to be applied to 'Head Cam' recorded material, that's inevitably going to push the price up for the constabularies, and anyone else using similar gear. And of course unless the process is standardised, we could find individual manufacturers adopting different encryption techniques, which will be just one more layer of technical challenges to overcome, before the recorded material can be accepted into the CJS.

I do find it a bit troubling that policy always seems to be made on a reactive basis, with precious little ongoing examination, discussion and development of best practice, to design out potential problems before they occur.

Aahhhhh, isn't human nature a wonderful thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Mick]

Ironic really.

For the last few years, we as CCTV practitioners have been trying to get some standardisation for CCTV product, so that it can be easily read (played) by all the diverse partner agencies involved in the community safety / criminal justice process ............. Only to find that (IMHO, in order to halt any further government embarassment linked to such data loss) we may in the future have to encrypt such CCTV product.

As you say D/J, it looks like a standard encryption product for CCTV may be necessary. But in being STANDARD, will it be secure ?

I'm going for a lie down !

[Lee Tracey]

Two aspects - first for Mick:

It looks as though you are wrong and the H/O will not extend the time. Tenders are coming out thick and fast for the Body-worn and checking with the Police they all state that they have exhausted attempots to get the H/O to be sensible. They all had a meeting at the H/O on the 23rd and tried hard then so it is now the goods have to be delivered and invoiced by March 24th.

The only suppliers who could perhaps meet that deadline is the Cylon ( you carried a few messages from Andy Fox of Audax ) provided Archos can deliver enough AV500 games players in that time. We are producing a design from scratch version and we cannot get anywhere near March 24th so we are declining all tender and offer requests.

The other aspect is that all the tenders and the H/O spec required that all video be easily displayed on any PC via Windows Media Player - how do you handle that if it is to be encrypted?

Lee Tracey