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

Wrong Dahua Australia Medical Device Approved on Jul 20, 2020
Dahua's body temperature system is now in Australia's medical device...
Amazon, Microsoft and IBM Abandoning Face Recognition Is An "Irresponsible PR Stunt" Says AnyVision on Jul 17, 2020
In the wake of national protests against US police abuses, big tech firms...
Axis Compares Fever Camera Sellers to 9/11 on Sep 18, 2020
Axis Communications, the West's largest surveillance camera manufacturer, has...
Dahua Loses Australian Medical Device Approval on Aug 04, 2020
Dahua has cancelled its medical device registration after "discussions" with...
France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial...
Dahua Taunts Australian Government, Continues To Sell Illegal Fever Cameras on Aug 10, 2020
Dahua is effectively taunting the Australian government by continuing to sell...
Australia Dahua Faked Advertisement, Government Warns of 'Criminal Offense' for Not Registering As Medical Device on Jun 25, 2020
A full-page advertisement in a national Australia newspaper for Dahua's...
Clearview AI Alarm - NY Times Report Says "Might End Privacy" on Jan 20, 2020
Over the weekend, the NY Times released a report titled "The Secretive...
FLIR Suspends Agreement With Feevr on May 07, 2020
Thermal manufacturer FLIR has suspended its agreement with Feevr (aka...
UK Court Rules Police Facial Recognition Needs Reform on Sep 01, 2020
A UK court has ruled that the South Wales Police use of facial recognition is...
Face Masks Increase Face Recognition Errors Says NIST on Aug 04, 2020
COVID-19 has led to widespread facemask use, which as IPVM testing has shown...
Latest London Police Facial Recognition Suffers Serious Issues on Feb 24, 2020
On February 20, IPVM visited another live face rec deployment by London...
US GSA Explains NDAA 889 Part B Blacklisting on Jul 31, 2020
With the 'Blacklist Clause' going into effect August 13 that bans the US...
UK ICO Approves Unconsented Facial Recognition At Security Conferences on Feb 05, 2020
The UK's data protection agency has declined IPVM's GDPR complaint against...
Every VMS Will Become a VSaaS on Feb 21, 2020
VMS is ending. Soon every VMS will be a VSaaS. Competitive dynamics will be...

Recent Reports

Avigilon Aggressive Trade-In Program Takes Aim At Competitors on Oct 20, 2020
Avigilon has launched one of the most aggressive trade-in programs the video...
Mexico Video Surveillance Market Overview 2020 on Oct 20, 2020
Despite being neighbors, there are key differences between the U.S. and...
Dahua Revenue Grows But Profits Down, Cause Unclear on Oct 20, 2020
While Dahua's overall revenue was up more than 12% in Q3 2020, a significant...
Illegal Hikvision Fever Screening Touted In Australia, Government Investigating, Temperature References Deleted on Oct 20, 2020
The Australian government told IPVM that they are investigating a Hikvision...
Panasonic Presents i-PRO Cameras and Video Analytics on Oct 19, 2020
Panasonic presented its i-PRO X-Series cameras and AI video analytics at the...
Augmented Reality (AR) Cameras From Hikvision and Dahua Examined on Oct 19, 2020
Hikvision, Dahua, and other China companies are marketing augmented reality...
18 TB Video Surveillance Drives (WD and Seagate) on Oct 19, 2020
Both Seagate and Western Digital recently announced 18TB hard drives...
Watrix Gait Recognition Profile on Oct 16, 2020
Watrix is the world's only gait recognition surveillance provider IPVM has...
Intel Presents Edge-to-Cloud Ecosystem for Video Analytics on Oct 16, 2020
Intel presented its processors and software toolkit for computer vision at...
Microsoft Azure Presents Live Video Analytics on Oct 15, 2020
Microsoft Azure presented its Live Video Analytics offering at the September...
Worst Manufacturer Technical Support 2020 on Oct 15, 2020
4 manufacturers stood out as providing the worst technical support to ~200...
Clorox Announces, Then Pulls, Fever Camera on Oct 15, 2020
For almost one week, Clorox was marketing fever cameras. The booming...
Faulty Hikvision Fever Cam Setup at Mexico City Basilica and Cathedral on Oct 14, 2020
Donated Hikvision fever cameras (claiming screening of 1,800 people/min. with...
Directory of 211 "Fever" Camera Suppliers on Oct 14, 2020
This directory provides a list of "Fever" scanning thermal camera providers...