Crappy Cameras Trigger City Surveillance Shutdown

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on May 14, 2013

An Australian city has shut off its surveillance system after being ordered to determine how to operate its cameras without violating privacy laws. The order was passed down months after a case brought by one of its residents who argued the city had no surveillance authority and violated laws by improperly collecting personal information, including that the image quality was so poor it was impossible for the city to collect accurate depictions. A tribunal decided in the resident’s favor. In this note, we review the case.

Last Thursday, the City of Shoalhaven, in New South Wales, turned off 18 surveillance cameras in its downtown business district after being ordered by an Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). The tribunal’s decision is the result of a complaint filed by Shoalhaven resident Adam Bonner. 

Bonner asserted that the city cannot prevent crime with surveillance cameras, had no authority to collect personal information and improperly notified the public that it would be collecting images. One of the more damaging assertions though was that the city’s camera images were too poor to use for evidence or crime prevention.

UPDATE: Shoalhaven has turned it's cameras back on. Full update at the bottom of this post. 

Crime Prevention and Image Quality

Shoalhaven’s lawyers say the cameras, which went online in 2009, were collecting information as part of the city’s crime prevention strategy, according to tribunal records. Additionally, after a crime happens, the council said it provides police with images. 

The complainant argued that poor image quality made cameras ineffective for both crime prevention or investigations. Bonner says the camera quality was so poor that anyone watching live would not be able to make out facial features of anyone farther than five meters and such poor quality video was of little value to an investigation after a crime is committed. Out of 25 incidents, in only one case was the victim identifiable using camera images. In that case both the victim and the offender were already “well known to the police.” Note: no sample images were made available online with the case file. 

In his argument, Bonner noted that the town went against its own specifications for PTZ cameras and bought fixed cameras using digital zoom (see our Digital Zoom Tutorial) on the advice of a provider who bid on the project (and won). 

The tribunal agreed, saying the blurry images were “inaccurate and incomplete" representations, which violate the requirement to collect accurate information. It also said the images did not provide any meaningful assistance to law enforcement. 

Further, expert witnesses testified, that “personal information is not reasonably necessary for the purpose of assisting with crime prevention” and that “public CCTV, particularly in cities and town centres, has a statistically insignificant effect on crime reduction.” Crime data for the area showed that crime has actually increased since the 2009 camera installation. Of course, many factors can contribute to crime shifts beyond cameras, both positive and negative.

Other Arguments 

The complainant also argued the city was not eligible for law enforcement privacy exemptions that allow collection of personal information. Police could get access to recorded video, but did not operate the system.

As for signage and notification, the tribunal said signage placed on the perimeter of the business district was “sufficient to inform a majority of individuals that the cameras are in operation and, by implication, that personal information is being collected" but not "sufficient to inform individuals of the purposes for which the information is being collected.”  

The Tribunal ordered the city to “refrain from any conduct or action in contravention of an information protection principle or a privacy code of practice” so they turned the cameras off for now.

Local Impact

Locally, this case is likely to have an impact more on how cameras are used, not if they are. According to the tribunal, cameras cannot prevent crimes from happening so the Shoalhaven’s crime prevention argument was a nonstarter. Additionally, Shoalhaven erred by assuming it was exempt from privacy laws because it was providing video to the police. Police are exempt from personal information privacy laws, cities are not. Cities have to be clear why they are collecting images. In this case, the tribunal found the images were not much help to the police anyway, only providing evidence in one of 25 sample cases. In the wake of this case, however, both city and state officials have implied state legislation is forthcoming that would allow cities to install cameras for law enforcement purposes.

Overall Impact

We do not believe this will have much overall impact. First, it appears this city simply made a mistake by using low resolution fixed cameras instead of PTZs or multi-megapixel ones that would facilitate covering greater areas. Secondly, stringent privacy laws are only applicable to a handful of countries (mostly UK Commonwealth and Europe - see our International Surveillance Law Review).

UPDATE: In a matter of days, NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell announced new regulations that exempt cities from parts of the privacy act, giving them CCTV powers similar to those of law enforcement. Cities are now allowed to collect personal information using CCTV and the cameras in Shoalhaven will be turned back on by Friday afternoon, the Illawarra Mercury reports.

Comments (4) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

Latest London Police Facial Recognition Suffers Serious Issues on Feb 24, 2020
On February 20, IPVM visited another live face rec deployment by London police, but this time the system was thwarted by technical problems and...
London Live Police Face Recognition Visited on Feb 13, 2020
London police have officially begun using live facial recognition in select areas of the UK capital, sparking significant controversy. IPVM...
France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial recognition as a school access control solution, even with the consent of...
UK Facewatch GDPR Compliance Questioned on Aug 27, 2019
Even as the GDPR strictly regulates biometrics, a UK company called Facewatch is selling anti-shoplifter facial recognition systems to hundreds of...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
Bank Security Manager Interview on May 15, 2019
Bank security contends with many significant threats - from fraudsters to robbers and more. In this interview, IPVM spoke with bank security...
San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined on May 14, 2019
San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few...
Restaurant Security Manager Interview on May 06, 2019
Wright’s Gourmet House in Tampa, Florida has been around for over 50 years. During most of that time, there were no security measures in place. Now...
UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...
Casino Security Consultant Carl Lindgren Interview on Mar 26, 2019
For more than 20 years, Carl Lindgren worked as a casino surveillance pro, while being active (and sometimes outspoken) on various online video...

Most Recent Industry Reports

GeoVision Presents AI and Facial Recognition on May 22, 2020
GeoVision presented its AI analytics and facial recognition at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...
Density Presents Occupancy Monitoring For Coronavirus Protection on May 22, 2020
Density presented its cloud-based occupancy sensor to deal with Coronavirus at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A...
Openpath Presents Two Door PoE Controller on May 21, 2020
Openpath presented its new PoE controller at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Openpath including...
Bosch Presents MIC 7100 Extreme PTZs on May 21, 2020
Bosch presented its MIC 7100 Extreme PTZs at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from Bosch...
Hikvision Chairman Targeted For Sanctions As Federal Watchdog Calls Out Hikvision "Serious Religious Freedom Violations" on May 21, 2020
The US government's religious freedom watchdog has criticized Hikvision for being "credibly implicated in serious religious freedom violations"....
Hikvision Temperature Screening Tested on May 20, 2020
Hikvision has ramped up the promotion of its 'temperature screening' system, including their salespeople arguing for no blackbody needed. But how...
Axxon Presents VMS 4.4 and AI Behavior Analytics on May 20, 2020
AxxonSoft presented its VMS 4.4 and AI behavior analytics at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...
Indoor Robotics Presents Tando Aerial Drones on May 20, 2020
Indoor Robotics presented Tando indoor autonomous drones at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from...
Directory of 89 Video Surveillance Startups on May 20, 2020
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly...
FLIR Cancelling Contract With X.Labs / Feevr on May 20, 2020
While X.Labs announced the signing of a new agreement with FLIR on May 12, 2020, FLIR said, in response, on May 18, 2020, that they had cancelled a...