New to the forum-help with cameras please

[disgruntledresident]

Hello All,

I've just joined and need some help with an issue please.

I am a disgruntled resident (to say the least!) as recently, some cameras have gone up on my street (as well as a couple of streets near by). However, these are very close to my home and actually appear to be pointing directly at my home!

I have not been consulted about these and my immediate neighbours have not either.

I am in an area where the MP is standing down so I cannot write to them. I have contacted local councillors and have heard that the Police have put these up but am awaiting further information. I have contacted the Police but am waiting for a call back.

I have attached two pictures below. The first is a close up of the camera/pole and the second is from my front room window:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n292/justausername2006/110420101004-2.jpg

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n292/justausername2006/04042010986.jpg

Help please!

DG

[king triad]

Hello All,

I've just joined and need some help with an issue please.

I am a disgruntled resident (to say the least!) as recently, some cameras have gone up on my street (as well as a couple of streets near by). However, these are very close to my home and actually appear to be pointing directly at my home!

I have not been consulted about these and my immediate neighbours have not either.

I am in an area where the MP is standing down so I cannot write to them. I have contacted local councillors and have heard that the Police have put these up but am awaiting further information. I have contacted the Police but am waiting for a call back.

I have attached two pictures below. The first is a close up of the camera/pole and the second is from my front room window:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n292/justausername2006/110420101004-2.jpg

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n292/justausername2006/04042010986.jpg

Help please!

DG

Welcome to the forum...and welcome to the New World Order!!

[ninny]

which country is that if i may ask?
and welcome

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/images/smilies/SMILE_Wave_1.gif

[disgruntledresident]

Hi

This is the Midlands, England.

[king triad]

Hi

This is the Midlands, England.

They have those CCTV cameras all over England are you suprised really??

[disgruntledresident]

They have those CCTV cameras all over England are you suprised really??

Yes, I am surprised as:

1. There has been no spike in crime on the street that I know of.
2. There has been no consultation with local residents that I know of.
3. There are already some cameras at the top end of the street.
4. One of these cameras is pointing directly at my home.

[ninny]

4. One of these cameras is pointing directly at my home.

im not suprised that its england. but this point would bother me also.

[bruiseviolet]

Wow, that's insane. I'd get a petition going maybe or tell people to write to the council and ask them to either remove it or move it so that there is no breach of privacy. Either that or enjoy being on your own reality show.

I live in quite a poor area with no doubt a few "youth" crimes but we have hardly any CCTV around here.

[m6000000]

Guess is time to move out mate, that is all you can do' unless u r brave enough to do like what some do in my country.

They spray the cams with black color. LoL.

Welcome here

[martg]

the words 'Angle-grinder' spring to mind ;)

[phemohilia]

(In Tony Soprano's voice)

Ya know how it is, sometimes, bad things happen to good cameras.... It's just a fact of life.... There's no gettin' around it.... :cool:

[passing]

They might be fakes... as suggested by being pointlessly pointed at your house.
Just a guess...

[infidelyork]

They appear to be 'fixed position' cameras and not PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) so I would imagine they are positioned to show the road as opposed to your house. I know some Police Forces/Councils use a 'privacy screen' on their PTZ's, a generated black square on the screen, should the camera be turned in the direction of a window. You are in your rights to apply for footage from the camera under the freedom of information if you believe there are images of you taken by the camera.
I'd be happier if they fixed the bloody street lights outside my house instead of spending money on more cameras.

[passing]

You are in your rights to apply for footage from the camera under the freedom of information if you believe there are images of you taken by the camera.

That's good to know (or would be if it were me) but sounds like a lot of hassle when they shouldn't be pointing cameras at your window in the first place!

[infidelyork]

That's good to know (or would be if it were me) but sounds like a lot of hassle when they shouldn't be pointing cameras at your window in the first place!

Totally agree!

[dalem]

the words 'Angle-grinder' spring to mind ;)
Agree.
+10 :) or see below.....

[dalem]

Great way to advertise Brown's paedophiliac activities, put this on a pole in your garden.


http://i39.tinypic.com/i6kn7o.jpg

And on the other side put this.

http://i40.tinypic.com/142yf4h.jpg

[disgruntledresident]

They appear to be 'fixed position' cameras and not PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) so I would imagine they are positioned to show the road as opposed to your house. I know some Police Forces/Councils use a 'privacy screen' on their PTZ's, a generated black square on the screen, should the camera be turned in the direction of a window. You are in your rights to apply for footage from the camera under the freedom of information if you believe there are images of you taken by the camera.
I'd be happier if they fixed the bloody street lights outside my house instead of spending money on more cameras.

I have a feeling these are ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras. However, they are literally on adjacent streets which are short walking distance to each other - doesn't make sense - wouldn't you want them on entry/exits to areas?! I have also read that some of these can be dual-purpose and used for regular CCTV.. but there is already a PTZ CCTV up the street.. so I am not sure.

I am thinking of a FOI request to find out the following:

1. What type of cameras these area?
2. How many such cameras are installed/being installed in the area.
3. The cost of installing each pole/camera.
4. How many cameras are installed in neighbouring areas/their future plans for them.
5. Camera images of the camera that appears to be pointing directly at my home.

What do you think?

[biblegirl]

geez! a camera blatantly pointed at your house is creepy!

sorry i don't have any suggestions right now, hope it gets taken care of

[disgruntledresident]

geez! a camera blatantly pointed at your house is creepy!

sorry i don't have any suggestions right now, hope it gets taken care of

Thank you, but I think this one may be for the clued up Brits on here. :(

[infidelyork]

I have a feeling these are ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras.
That's certainly a possibility

I am thinking of a FOI request to find out the following:

1. What type of cameras these area?
2. How many such cameras are installed/being installed in the area.
3. The cost of installing each pole/camera.
4. How many cameras are installed in neighbouring areas/their future plans for them.
5. Camera images of the camera that appears to be pointing directly at my home.

What do you think?
I think that about covers it. Only issue is finding out if they are Police or Local Authority owned so you know where to send the request. I would telephone the local Council first (rather than the Police) and find out if they are operated by them.
An interesting snippit from the CCTV Data Protection Code of Practice:

Where the system will be operated by or on behalf of a public authority, the authority will also need to consider wider human rights issues and in particular the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). This will include:

* Is the proposed system established on a proper legal basis and operated in accordance with the law?
* Is it necessary to address a pressing need, such as public safety, crime prevention or national security?
* Is it justified in the circumstances?
* Is it proportionate to the problem that it is designed to deal with?

If this is not the case then it would not be appropriate to use CCTV.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/cctv_code_of_practice_html/4_deciding.html

[ibaster]

I would not suggest the angle grinder method but I do recall a speed camera on a road in my old home town. It went up one day and the following day it was pulled down and burned. I think it went back up and came back down. I am not sure how it ended but they will probably be able to spend tax payers money on putting it back up so perhaps another option is better found.
I think Mark Thomas style response is best. It is certainly good to know the law and use it against them.

[disgruntledresident]

Hello all,

Apologies for the delaying replying but I've been trying to get more information.

I contacted the local area councillors who said they did not know who had put them up and would investigate.

I contacted the local area forum representatives who said the Police put them up.

I contacted the Police who (eventually) got back to me and informed me that it was NOT them who have put them up but it is from the Home Office under a scheme called the 'Safer Birmingham Partnership' (do a google search). He sent me the following details below*

I then contacted the SBP and got through to someone to voice my concerns. He said that all local councillors were informed and should have told the residents - funny then how the councillors denied knowing anything and I have received a letter from my councillor stating they have written to the Police for more information. :-/ He stated that I should e-mail him my concerns.

NEXT STEPS:

1. Should I e-mail him what I was going to put in a FOI request?
2. Write back to councillor with my findings and ask how/if residents were informed?

3. Any other suggestions please?


*

Date: 15 April 2010
LS/039
Funding secured to reduce crime in Birmingham
The Safer Birmingham Partnership has secured £3million in funding from the Home Office to improve community safety and crime reduction in the Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook wards. These areas have been identified as ‘priority crime neighbourhoods’ and therefore are to benefit from funding for local improvement works.

The funding is to be used to install CCTV and ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras in these wards, which will play a significant role in reducing all types of localised crime and criminal behaviour, from burglary, robbery, vehicle crime, anti-social behaviour, drug dealing and traffic offences right through to terrorism - all of which are outcomes that the Safer Birmingham Partnership is committed to achieving.

The cameras will be installed in cluster sites to ensure that coverage is as effective as possible. The majority of cameras will be placed in the Sparkbrook and Washwood Heath wards, but a small number of ANPR cameras will also be located in Kings Heath and Moseley, to ensure that roads currently used as short cuts or ‘rat runs’ into Sparkbrook are also covered to maximise the overall effectiveness of the scheme.

CCTV and ANPR cameras are regularly used as an effective means of tackling crime and enhancing public safety.

Jackie Russell, Director of the Safer Birmingham Partnership said, ‘We are committed to ensuring that Birmingham remains one of the safest cities in the UK, and I am confident that these additional crime prevention measures will assist us in improving the quality of life for local residents’.

Ends

Notes to Editors

Safer Birmingham Partnership is a multi-agency partnership that brings together agencies including Birmingham City Council, West Midlands Police, West Midlands Fire Service and others who are all working together for a safer city.

[infidelyork]

I think there is something seriously amiss here with regards to your people 'knowing nothing about it'.
The Home Office did not 'put the cameras up', they provided the funding (some or all of it).
These 'Safer Communities' groups are pretty much in every large town and City, normally staffed by employees of the Council, police Officers and sometimes local business people. There would have been discussions between the Council and the Police as to where to locate the cameras, they are, after all, located on highways and pavements owned BY the Council.

It would be useful to find out who operates the cameras. It varies from place to place, but in many places the CCTV is operated by the Council, but ANPR would be monitored by the Police. Rather than contact the councillor again, (although some serious questions need to be put to him) try putting your questions to Stephen Hughes, the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council.

The buck, as they say, stops with him. He will be the one trying to worm his way out of answering the 'why were the residents not consulted' question.

[disgruntledresident]

Now that the election is over, should I also write to the MP?

[infidelyork]

Now that the election is over, should I also write to the MP?

Personally I think writing to MP's is a waste of time, but it wouldn't do any harm. What I would do is write to the local paper, highlighting the fact that the residents were supposed to be consulted, nobody appears to be taking responsibility for the cameras, and although you appreciate methods to reduce crime, having cameras just appear outside your house without consultation is not 'playing the community game'. If they ARE cctv, you need reassurance that they are not invading privacy, the data is handled correctly, and there are trained operators using them. (Not some 18 year old who thinks he's 'trained' because he's been on an SIA course)

[disgruntledresident]

Well, I have been putting together my letter(s) and have just come across this very interesting Guardian article about the cameras.

Does this change/adjust what I should put in my letters at all? Ideas appreciated:


Surveillance cameras spring up in Muslim areas - the targets? Terrorists

• Birmingham system to monitor known extremists
• Outrage over scheme paid for from terrorism fund

* Paul Lewis
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 June 2010 18.55 BST
* Article history

Surveillance camera in Birmingham A surveillance camera and Birmingham Central Mosque in the city's Balsall Heath area. Photograph: Andrew Fox for the Guardian

When the cameras appeared above the rooftops in the Birmingham suburbs, some people realised they were mostly automatic number plate reading (ANPR) cameras, used to track drivers' movements. Protesters sprayed the camera posts with messages such as "1984 Big Brother" and "You are now entering a police state."

Those suspicious enough to ask what the cameras were for were given the impression they were part of a Home Office initiative to tackle vehicle crime on the Stratford Road corridor, an arterial route into the city.

For the vast majority of people on the bustling streets of Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook, two of the city's predominantly Muslim areas, the cameras were inconspicuous, melting into pavements filled with fruit stalls and fabric shops.

But an investigation by the Guardian has established that the surveillance cameras are the first of a kind in the UK.

While they may be used for ordinary crime fighting, they were put up to monitor extremists that the police and MI5 know to be living among the city's Muslim population.

The cameras appeared at 81 sites without consultation, after being requested by West Midlands police counterterrorism unit more than two years ago. They include around 150 ANPR cameras, 40 of which have been classified as "covert", and are thought to be concealed in walls and trees by the side of the road.

Birmingham city centre is covered by just 50 ANPR cameras. Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook have also been given an additional 60 standard CCTV cameras.

A total £3m to pay for the initiative, codenamed Project Champion, was channelled from the Terrorism and Allied Matters (Tam) fund, administered by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The criteria for Tam funds say a police force must prove that a project will "deter or prevent terrorism or help to prosecute those responsible". Tam money has previously been released to pay for ANPR camera projects across England and Wales. But police sources have confirmed that all other ANPR projects to receive the funds monitor "iconic sites" – potential terrorism targets – rather than communities considered to be at risk of extremism.

The cameras form "rings of steel" that ensure no one can enter or leave Washwood Heath or Sparkbrook in a vehicle without being tracked.

Documents reveal that a smaller number of cameras installed in neighbouring wards, such as Kings Heath and Moseley, are designed to cover "rat runs" into Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook.

When the system goes live in the coming weeks, every car journey in the area will be monitored, with data transferred to a database known as BOF2, located in a building in Stechford. Details of journeys will be stored for two years at the national ANPR data centre in Hendon, north London.

Project Champion has been developed behind closed doors for more than two years. It can be traced back to its formal adoption at a meeting of West Midlands police authority in February 2008, after a subsection of the Local Government Act was invoked to exclude members of the public from discussions. By then, senior officers at West Midlands police had already been in discussion with national terrorism chiefs about the programme.

The public face of the scheme became the Safer Birmingham Partnership (SBP), a body that bridges the police and the local authority.

It was not until more than a year later, in April 2009, that some of the councillors in wards where the cameras would appear were briefed at a meeting at police headquarters. All eight councillors who have cameras in their ward complain they were given insufficient, if any, information.

Councillors present said they were given the impression that the initiative was aimed at combating drug-dealing, antisocial behaviour and crime, and that their areas had been chosen because they had high crime rates. Terrorism, they say, was mentioned only as an aside, as part of a range of crimes the scheme could address.

One Respect councillor, Mohammed Ishtiaq, said they had been "100% misled" about the cameras, and were not told they would appear on side streets.

Tanveer Choudhry, a Liberal Democrat councillor for the Springfield ward, said he received "misleading information" from a council employee.

"We were not told where the cameras would go – the areas – or what they would be used for," he said.

He added: "I have had a lot of people who are very concerned. The community feels like it is being victimised. The message is, if you live in a predominantly Muslim area, you're a suspected terrorist."

Other councillors said they only became aware of the scheme when contract workers started digging up the pavement. They said the cameras threatened the trust between the Muslim community and police.

Briefing documents given to councillors made only fleeting references to counterterrorism, and in parts sought to play down its importance. The only reference in one four-page document comes in a single paragraph, which states that an added advantage of the cameras is that they will "provide support and reassurance to communities considered to be vulnerable to violent extremism". Another document has a sub-heading: "Has this got anything to do with preventing acts of terrorism?" It states in response: "This is not the focus of the operation. The cameras will be used to tackle all types of crime."

Inspector Kevin Borg, the liaison officer for SBP who briefed locals about the project, said it was regretted that not all councillors were informed, but maintained that some were told last year the cameras would be used for a "whole range" of crime prevention, including counterterrorism.

"It was badged as Home Office money," he said. "Terrorism and allied matters was not mentioned at that stage. I just don't think it was a detail that needed to be discussed at that stage."

He said he and the director of the SBP, Jackie Russell, who is in overall charge of the scheme, only discovered themselves that the cameras were installed as part of a counterterrorism initiative less than two months ago.

Russell said that in hindsight there should have been consultation with the public, but denied she had been deliberately misled by the police about the funding arrangement. "It wasn't hidden from me, it wasn't something I asked about. For me it was just Home Office money … I know what I was part of and I was in no way designing to deceive people."

She and Borg said that while the counterterrorism funding may be a concern to some, most people in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook would welcome the fact the cameras could also alleviate crime and antisocial behaviour.

Colin Holder, who runs CCTV and ANPR for West Midlands police, said: "I've always known where the funding has come from. As far as I am aware, there was no intention to hide that from anyone."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/04/birmingham-surveillance-cameras-muslim-community

[infidelyork]

Well, I have been putting together my letter(s) and have just come across this very interesting Guardian article about the cameras.

Does this change/adjust what I should put in my letters at all? Ideas appreciated:


It appears that the Director of the 'Safer Birmingham Partnership' is an employee of the Council. Jackie Russell has a '@birmingham.gov.uk' email address and used to be the Acting Head of Equalities for the Councils Resources Directorate, Equalities Division.

I found an interesting press release on a facebook account called CCTV cameras in Moseley? NO THANKS!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119180531441911

I won't copy/paste it in its entirety, I'll let you look at it at your leisure but there are a few interesting paragraphs in it:

Why were the locations of the cameras kept secret?
The location of the camera sites was not kept secret. The locations were discussed with Birmingham City Council as a routine requirement of the Highways Department.
As I thought previously, Highways would have had to have been involved somewhere.
The locations were also discussed with constituency staff who agreed that it would not be helpful to make known all of the camera locations as this would impact on the effectiveness of the project.
This I find worrying, the plans to use covert cameras.
As the majority of cameras are overt, their presence will become known, but will still provide a deterrent to offenders and reassurance to residents
Notice the 'but'? It's almost as though they WANT the cameras to be covert.
The project also includes a small number of covert cameras the locations of which cannot be disclosed as this would seriously compromise Police intelligence information.
THAT'S the money shot. An admission of covert Police cameras on public streets.
Explain the lack of consultation
A comprehensive programme of consultation work was carried out in advance in the wards where the equipment was to be installed. This did not extend to the Kings Heath and Moseley ward as there was not an intention to install CCTV cameras in this area at the beginning of the project and this area is not the primary focus of the project.
Great explanation for the lack of consultation, there was no intention to install cameras there....
Only a small number of cameras (seven in total) have been installed across Kings Heath and Moseley - all of which are ANPR cameras
But they did it any way.
It is regrettable that the same level of consultation was not carried out prior to the installation of the ANPR cameras in the Moseley and Kings Heath ward and this is clearly something we must improve upon in the future.
Translated as: We got caught out.
We got that wrong – and we are now going to brief ward members and senior officials from partner agencies working in Kings Heath and Moseley
AFTER they have already been installed.

Planning permission/obstructions
Planning permission was not required for the installation of the cameras as the work is being carried out by Birmingham City Council.
Surprise, surprise.

I really don't know what to suggest with regards to your letter my friend, this whole thing stinks.

[disgruntledresident]

Update:

Attended a local meeting yesterday which included local councillors, police and the SBP.. the public turnout was good and the sentiment was very much against the cameras and the deceptive ways in which they have been put up.

Also interviews on BBC Midlands Today at 630PM BBC1 today (09 June 2010) - Sky Channel 979.

[ellis_deatrip]

Welcome to the forum...and welcome to the New World Order!!
Welcome to another day of getting screwed, welcome...
Channel 666 Red Light District - YouTube

[col kilgore]

Hi
you could always point a reasonably powered laser at it (laserpen would do) and see how long it was before they turned up. Lasers have a tendency to blind cameras (or at least the some types).

not sure if they could prosecute you (obstruction maybe?) but if you made enough of a publicity stunt of it, things could be different. After all, which Govt agency wants their pics all over the local rag?. Daily Mail like a bit of govt bashing, might be worth a call, especially if they were installed by the previous pricks..

Good luck

CK

[white horse]

Wow, that's insane. I'd get a petition going maybe or tell people to write to the council and ask them to either remove it or move it so that there is no breach of privacy. Either that or enjoy being on your own reality show.

I live in quite a poor area with no doubt a few "youth" crimes but we have hardly any CCTV around here.

Well yeah cos all the cameras are in the rich areas. Folllow the money mate. The police are only really interested in the crimes that affect money - not against the person.

So the cameras are in the richer areas to watch for the people from the poorer areas coming in and nicking their stuff!