Going Digital Many people talk glibly about "going-digital", when they mean that old analogue-based systems are to be replaced with newer digitally-based systems. It is now happening in our own CCTV industry, but what do we mean by "digital" ? Where in the chain of camera to recording should we use digital technology ? What are the benefits in converting to digital systems ? Why can’t we stick with analogue systems ?
This document attempts to give some brief and basic answers to all of these questions.
Current CCTV performance is severely constricted by CCIR video standards which have been carried over from the development of television. TV video standards were developed they way they were for very good reasons, few of which are of any help in CCTV applications. Historically, CCTV manufacturers have gone to extraordinary lengths (sometimes very ingeniously) to get the best possible performance out of this standard. Over the next five years, however, we will see the CCTV industry throw off these chains and move entirely into the digital domain, following broadcasting, telecommunications, the recording industry and printing, to name but a few.
Analogue and digital signals
In analogue systems, a video picture is represented by some continuously varying quantity, usually a voltage. Each stage of the process, from camera through cabling, switching or multiplexing, recording and finally display, involves a transfer of this signal with unavoidable loss of both accuracy and quality.
A digital signal, on the other hand can be transferred from one stage to another with total precision, as each tiny part of the signal is represented by a number. Transmissions are coded such that any errors can be detected and corrected, or part of the signal can be repeated. The process of digitisation itself does, however, involve some loss of accuracy. In an ideal world, video signals would be generated in a digital format to begin with, and processed from start to finish in the digital domain. This is exactly how CCTV systems will operate in the future as we shall see.
Cameras
CCTV camera manufacturers have caused a lot of confusion with their marketing of so-called "digital" cameras. Virtually none of them are true digital cameras they merely have internal digital processing to produce a better picture, or they have a digital interface for camera control, but NOT a digital image output. True digital cameras throw away the normal analogue video standard and with it the problems of fixed frame rate, interlacing, interlace motion-blur, limited TV-line resolution, and loss of signal quality over distance. Digital cameras can produce a digital signal with a frame rate and resolution most suited to the application, and can vary this according to immediate needs. Such cameras will be able to switch rapidly from high-frame-rate, medium resolution image output to very high resolution snapshots or to low-frame-rate low-resolution output for video transmission over phone lines. By using use non-interlaced progressive scan, digital cameras will immediately DOUBLE the available vertical resolution for recording. (Analogue CCTV video recorders record single fields only, to avoid the interlace motion-blur problem see box for further details).
Digital cameras will be far more capable than just offering better resolution and image quality they will be intelligent. Their on-board processors and memory storage will mean that with suitable programming, they will switch on lights when they need to, detect motion, trigger alarms, open gates, close doors and record pre- and post-alarm images. They will be capable of controlling their own PTZ mounts, triggering wash/wipe functions automatically and reminding system managers when scheduled maintenance is due.
There are at least four manufacturers of digital cameras which in principle offer many of these features, and developments are rapid, but we are still some way from fully exploiting digital technology in CCTV cameras.
Local transmission
This is the means by which the camera signals are transmitted and collected together in a control room or other central point for recording, observation and control. Analogue video is transmitted over coaxial cables or over twisted-pair cables with special converters at each end. Analogue cabling of whatever type is subject to signal loss, interference, noise, and general loss of quality. Fibre-optic transmission, although expensive, is now common on many larger sites, but the signals are usually digitised first, and re-converted at the receiving end.
With true digital cameras, the digital images can transmitted on various types of data cable (including fibre-optic), but the most common will be standard CAT5 cable, using Ethernet networking protocols.Ethernet is the most common networking standard for modern computer systems and is easily exploited for CCTV applications. Digital data transmission will result in zero loss of signal quality.
Digital cameras will have on-board image compression, reducing the data transmitted, thereby using network bandwidth efficiently. What all this means is that digital cameras can, for example, be connected in series, with one cable connecting many digital cameras to a central point, dramatically reducing installation costs.
Telemetry
Telemetry (i.e. control of PTZ and other camera functions) brings further complications in analogue systems. Either separate cabling must be used, which is more expensive, or the telemetry signals must be transmitted alongside the video signals. Most CCTV control system manufacturers have developed their own telemetry protocols, some better than others, but there are often incompatibilities when different makes of equipment are used in the same system.
In the digital domain, telemetry signals are just additional data, and can be freely mixed with image data from the cameras with no interference or problems with signal protocols. Furthermore, the flexibility of digital data transmission is such that further system functions can be added at any time, just by modifying the software.
Multiplexers
A modern multiplexer digitises the incoming analogue camera video signals and synchronises them, interleaving fields from different cameras, and then re-converts the digital data back to the analogue domain for recording by an analogue VCR. So internally, a multiplexer already exploits digital technology, but in sort of half-hearted manner. Once digitised, why convert the data back to analogue with a further loss of quality ? Digital video recorders (discussed below) already integrate most of the functions of VCRs and multiplexers, and will soon make them obsolete.
Recorders
Analogue video recording is a very well-known technology, but so are the problems associated with it. Recorded image quality is limited, even when more expensive S-VHS recorders are used. Tapes and heads wear out, and maintenance is expensive. Tapes must be changed daily, be properly labelled and stored, and particular recorded sequences can be tedious and time-consuming to find.
Digital recording avoids all of these problems. The benefits of digital recording are well-documented elsewhere (contact the author for references), but to summarise they include:
In spite of all these advantages, some applications are better suited to analogue recording on grounds of cost, or long-term archiving requirements, but the day is fast approaching when even these points will no longer be valid. Current digital recorders are also limited by the fact that they are digitising standard analogue CCTV cameras. As we move towards all-digital systems, digital video recorders will simply collect and store the already-digital signal from the cameras, at whatever frame rate and resolution the camera produces at the time.
Even the good old analogue video monitor screen is not safe from the advancing army of digital technologies. Video monitors are bulky, heavy, consume a lot of power and produce a lot of heat. They are cheap, however, and so will be around for some time yet.
Flat-screen LCD displays are by their very nature, digital, as each point on the screen is a separately-addressable pixel. Many such screens now have direct digital interfaces, so that the graphic display as generated by a computer (or digital video camera or recorder) never goes through an analogue stage at all. Colour LCD displays are already competing with conventional CRTs in the computer market. As their price comes down and computer-based digital video recorders become the norm, we will see flat-panel displays being installed in CCTV control rooms.
In the not-too-distant future, we will see the advent of direct one-to-one pixel-pixel mapping from camera to display, where the digital signal from each individual light-sensitive pixel in the CCTV camera can be displayed by an individual pixel on a flat-screen monitor. This means very high-quality pictures with no loss of information, whether viewed a few feet from the camera, or from halfway across the world !
Remote transmission & control
Once a CCTV picture is in a digital format, it is easily transmitted over phone, ISDN, or data network. Likewise for control signals. The advantages of digital technology are so overwhelming for remote control and picture transmission, that all video transmission systems now use digital technology. As CCTV systems exploit more and more digital technology (such as digital recording or intelligent cameras), the capability and flexibility of remote-control systems will increase substantially.
Evolutionary trend towards digital systems
There is no longer any question about whether CCTV systems will become all-digital or not, only how and when. There are many intermediate steps on this path, as we have seen in the discussions above, but digital technology is rapidly overtaking analogue technology in all areas of CCTV. Remote transmission and control systems are all computer-based (i.e. digital). CCTV video recording is undergoing a major revolution as the power and flexibility of digital recording becomes more widely understood and accepted. Digital video recorders will become the core of new systems, with ever-increasing capabilities, taking over the functions of switching, multiplexing, spot monitoring and camera control. Properly designed systems will take likely future developments into account. Cameras already contain much digital processing technology, and soon many will be offered with proper digital outputs and direct network connections. In five years time, you may not be able to tell the difference between a CCTV system and a computer network. Even now, when we visit a larger company to discuss CCTV applications, we are not sure whether we are going to meet the security manager or the IT manager !
Introduction
In this article we are going to look at some of the technological trends in DVR technology, where this is leading us and what the practical implications are in choosing a system. Like any modern technological product, it helps enormously to have a basic understanding of the fundamentals to help you choose a product or solution which best suits your needs and your budget. It will also help you cut through some of the jargon used in the industry and to filter the information some over-eager sales people might throw at you. Luckily there are many expert consultants and sales professionals out there, and hopefully this article will help you tell the difference.
The Fundamentals
The next few sections look at some fundamental technical factors which are essential for specifying and choosing a DVR.
What matters most of all is the quality and rate of images which are recorded, plus the evidential robustness of the total system. Ease of use and convenience of data export are also vital and we will return to these two issues later. Of far less importance are a whole range of add-on features such as behavioural analysis and scene analysis, which add to costs but are of limited practical use for general-purpose applications (see “Active Systems” below).
Note that some systems can have excellent display quality, but poor playback quality. For a DVR, the playback quality is obviously the most crucial issue. A number of factors affect the actual usefulness of the recorded image, with the most obvious being the sharpness and clarity of the picture and the number of pictures captured per second. The sharpness and clarity are affected both by recorded resolution and by image compression methods [See sidebars for detail on these topics]. Other factors which affect picture quality include contrast, colour accuracy, picture noise and picture stability. These are factors which are difficult if not impossible to divine from a spec sheet, so the old saying “seeing is believing” could not be more apt for these products.
Fields, Frames And Capture Rates
As we shall see later on, there is a significant trend towards higher and higher frame rates as technology progresses, up to so-called “real-time” or “full-motion” video. Of course, at what rate a video signal actually becomes real-time is somewhat arbitrary, but convention has it that it means 25 frames per second, as this is the maximum frame rate for normal video (or 30 frames per second for the American NTSC).
Let’s be clear about the difference between fields and frames, as the significance and effect of the interlaced picture system usually not properly understood by DVR buyers.
The video signal standards used in CCTV are based on TV standards. A TV picture is built up from 625 horizontally scanned lines, of which only 576 are actually used for the picture. A video frame is composed of two half-frames or fields, with the first field being the odd-numbered horizontal lines (1, 3, 5 etc.) and the second field being all the even-numbered lines. A field consists of 288 horizontal lines, whilst a frame consists of 576 horizontal lines, giving rise to the resolution figures discussed earlier.
So an odd field and an even field are put together form a frame. This is called interlaced video, and can blur moving objects because there is a 1/50th sec time interval between the capture of each field. Most DVRs (and indeed time-lapse VCRs) cannot properly handle full-frame interlaced video and so capture fields only.
(For a full and detailed explanation of interlaced video and how this affects the performance of digital CCTV systems, please contact the author by e-mail).
Thus most DVRs quote their capture rates in fields per second (fps), as only single fields (i.e. half vertical resolution) are captured. Usually this figure is quoted as the total capture rate (i.e. across all channels) and not the individual channel capture rate. Other DVRs are capable of capturing full-frame video and therefore quote their rates in frames per second (also, unfortunately, abbreviated to fps). All of this is OK, but the customer must beware of how systems are specified, and what those specifications mean. It is important that you understand what the maximum capture rate per camera channel is, and whether this is a field rate only or full-frame capture.
“Specmanship”
A word of warning : A number of more devious manufacturers quote high resolution and high frame rates in the specification sheets for their DVRs, but neglect to state that you can only have one or the other, but not both, or that this cannot be achieved simultaneously across all camera channels.
Under this heading, it is a good time to discuss CCTV tender specifications, which have become something of a joke in the industry with the advent of DVR technology. We can all recognise when a specific manufacturer has been “favoured” by specifying so tightly, down to irrelevant or unimportant details, that only one machine will fit the job. Is this giving the end-user the best choice or the best deal ? Or too often, someone has done a cut-and-paste job from several different DVR spec sheets, not realising that the resulting specification is actually self-contradictory.
If you are an end-user, beware of letting your adviser specify more detail than is necessary to meet your needs. Also make sure you are comparing apples with apples when comparing quotes, as one manufacturer may have quoted to the letter of the specification, whilst another may take great liberties with it, and not be quoting what you need. When you find out, it may be too late. This is an increasing and unfortunate trend we have observed in the last couple of years.
Storage
We will look at storage trends in a minute, but just a quick look at storage fundamentals is worthwhile. Nearly all DVRs record onto hard disks. This is the perfect medium for video storage – it’s fast, efficient, relatively cheap and disks are getting cheaper and bigger by the day. There are some larger systems that still use digital tape juke boxes for back up and massive storage, but this really a Heath-Robinson way of doing things now.
Having said that, the hard disk is the weakest link in the DVR chain and the most likely component to fail. Careful design of the DVR is necessary to mitigate effects which stress hard disks (power, temperature, vibration, disk filing system type).
Note : this is one reason why so many low-end DVR systems, especially those from the Far East, provide a removable cradle for you to supply your own hard disk. If the disk fails – it’s your problem ! Responsible DVR manufacturers who take a more serious and professional approach to support matters handle things in a different way . . . . .
Disk drive technology is advancing rapidly, not just in capacity, but most importantly in reliability, power consumption and interface type. Until relatively recently, the choice was between IDE drives (also knows as ATA) and SCSI, with SCSI being very much more expensive, but designed for higher duty-cycles. A new type of drive interface, Serial-ATA or SATA is now available. SATA will eventually replace IDE entirely. SCSI disks are now rarely used for DVR applications as they do not have the capacity of IDE and SATA drives. The largest SCSI drive available today is 180GB, whilst IDE and SATA drives are up to 400GB, with 500GB drives just round the corner, so storage just keeps on getting cheaper and cheaper per GB.
There is also a trend at the higher end of the market towards external storage systems linked through SCSI, Firewire or Ethernet links, but using arrays of low-cost IDE or SATA drives. However, very often we see such systems specified with RAID5 being an absolute must.
Another word of caution : too many specifications are written without a proper understanding of storage systems. RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is a term used for using a group of disks together for either increased speed or redundancy against disk failure and there are several RAID formats. Space does not allow a deep discussion of these, but the commonly-specified RAID5 is worth more detail.
In a RAID5 configuration, the data are spread across the disks in such a way that the loss of any one disk can be tolerated, and the array rebuilt with the original data when a new disk replaces the faulty one. However, rebuilding can take considerable time and the performance (i.e. maximum recording speed) of the array can be vastly reduced during this time. However, if a second disk were to fail before the first one was replaced (and remember that we are talking about the real world where Sod’s Law rules), then EVERYTHING is lost. Were two disks to fail in a normal non-RAID disk array of, say eight disks, then only 2/8ths or one quarter of the information would be lost.
For applications where the recorded data is potentially sensitive enough to consider using RAID storage at all, then the best option is RAID0 which is effectively mirroring, or recording everything twice on separate disks. However, even with such a system, if the DVR power supply were to fail for example, then the recording stops, RAID or not. The most effective and secure way of recording for high-sensitivity applications is dual-redundant recording systems, where everything is duplicated. Believe it or not, this can often work out cheaper than using expensive external RAID systems.
Trends
With the basics out of the way, and having touched on storage trends, let’s widen this out and see where DVR technology is heading.
The original reason for using time-lapse recording in video surveillance was to squeeze a number of cameras onto one tape and to stretch the tape out to cover 24hrs, so it would only have to be changed once per day. Early DVR systems simply mimicked the VCR/MUX combination. In recent years, however, the image resolution, capture rate and storage capacity of DVRs have improved dramatically.
Today, the only reason for not recording all cameras at the highest resolution in real-time for 31 days are considerations of cost , but there are several systems around now which are capable of this and the trend in moving towards this goal is strong and inevitable. The larger disk drives available now enable multi-disk systems to store very high quality images at high frames for reasonable cost.
There is a definite trend, therefore, towards higher image quality at higher frame rates. This is a very good thing for the CCTV industry, as for too long the results produced by the average CCTV system have been virtually useless for the reliable identification of people and vehicles. Such identifications are, after all, of prime importance in solving crime and should be a fundamental expectation of a high-quality CCTV installation.
At the other end of the market, lower end JPEG time-lapse units have become a commodity item. Prices have fallen to such a level that they are rivalling the cost of a VCR a of a few years ago and are almost becoming disposable. This is good news for small shops and other applications where anything other than a quad-splitter and a VCR has previously been too expensive.
The danger is, of course, that you get what you pay for, and many installers are starting to use these cheap systems in totally inappropriate applications where there are considerations other than price. Data Protection Act compliance, image quality, reference clocks, ease of data transport, remote access, integration with other systems, audit trails for evidential robustness and of course, longer-term technical support are all matters which should be considered carefully.
PC-Based versus Non-PC Based DVRs
DVR systems can be classified into two types : those which are based around standard Windows PC systems (in various guises) and those which are purpose-designed dedicated hardware systems. There are some significant advantages to dedicated hardware systems in terms of cost and reliability, but what is lost is often some ease of use (due to the lack of a graphical interface) and flexibility. There are an increasing number of extremely low-cost dedicated hardware DVR systems now flooding in from the Far East which address the small-system end of the market. This trend will continue.
At the highest-end of the market (high-quality, high resolution at high frame rates), DVRs are all PC-based systems with only one or two very notable exceptions. It is likely that, over time, more of these specialised dedicated hardware systems will be developed which do not make any compromises on performance and which address the high-end of the market.
Ease Of Use and Evidential Issues
You would expect that with DVR’s now being a mature technology that they would have become much easier to use. In general, unfortunately, this is not the case. A feature “arms-race” seems to be happening as some manufacturers try to differentiate their products from the competition. These can make systems more complex than they need to be to operate.
On the evidential side, it is still amazing how many DVRs so not have a simple, straightforward and robust method of taking recordings off the DVR for evidential purposes. This is one of the most important features of a DVR and whatever method is employed should be thoroughly understood and approved by the user before purchase. As a minimum, any DVR should comply to the recently-released Home Office specifications for digital recording systems (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/digitalcctvleaflet.pdf).
Integration
DVRs are rapidly becoming the core of the CCTV system. Integrated PTZ control, alarm notification, site-maps, system management and even basic matrix functions are being built in to medium and higher-end systems. Whilst there is the obvious danger of putting too many technological eggs in one basket, and possibly ending up with systems which are too unwieldy for straightforward applications, the trend is there and unstoppable.
Integration doesn’t stop there. Some DVR systems integrate fully with POS (Point Of Sale or electronic till) systems, effectively allowing data searches and filters on till rolls to combat fraud by synchronising the video footage with what is being entered on the till. DVRs and Access Control systems are beginning to work together, providing a very powerful tool for keeping track of not only what access ID cards were used and when, but who used them (was it the authorised person, who was with them, what they were carrying and what did they do when they were in the controlled area ?). Other integration trends include Automatic Number Plate Reading (ANPR) systems and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The latter would allow a logistics company, for example, to track their goods through their system and pull up video footage of each time a package passed a scanning point, thus allowing them to follow what happened to it from that point on, perhaps by moving to replay from other cameras linked to the system.
Many different types of biometric systems are being developed due to current global pressures and threats, whether real or perceived. In due course, these will be integrated with DVRs.
Integration is a key trend for DVR technology and for CCTV generally. It vastly improves the overall power of the total security system.
IP Video
IP video systems, or networked video systems, are seen by most people as one of the most obvious and major trends in the CCTV industry. However, there is still more hype than substance, and unfortunately it is right up there with image compression in being generally misunderstood.
The topic of IP Video systems has been the subject of a huge number articles in the Security Trade Press, and a few of them have even been quite good. It’s a vast topic in itself, so only a few salient points will be raised here.
IP Cameras : if you choose to use an IP camera, just remember that you will never have the vast range of choice of camera type that you have with normal CCTV cameras. There are a good reasons why manufacturers offer such a range of camera types for different applications. If you really need to get your video onto your network, it may be better to choose the right conventional camera and use an external codec or network server box.
To get large numbers of cameras streaming over a network requires compromise – are you getting the same resolution, image quality and frame rate that you would from a conventional system ? If so, that requires a very large network bandwidth and in many cases you may have to arrange to do it over your IT manager’s dead body.
IP Video is ideal for some applications – video can be made available anywhere on the network, can be recorded anywhere and played back anywhere. It is the ultimate in flexibility. Some IP video equipment manufacturers have spent a great deal of effort trying to convince people (including themselves, I suspect) that IP video is more cost-effective. For some specialist applications, it can be very cost effective and very good. For general applications this is usually not the case, and although it might be one day, even this is not certain.
If you need an IP video component in your system, ensure that it properly integrates with your conventional video systems. Specifically, your NVRs (Network Video Recorders) and your DVRs should work together and either be the same system or be 100% compatible and seamlessly linked. Your system operators should not have to think about two separate systems.
What will drive IP video forward in the future is the development and exploitation of non-video (i.e. very high resolution) digital sensor arrays, wireless network improvements and a new generation of IT managers who are in charge of all security matters, not just IT. Whether we think this is a good thing or not (because they are not security professionals), it is happening already. How many security managers nowadays report to the IT manager simply because of technology convergence ?
Active Systems
Finally, another, less significant, trend is the advent of ”active” or so-called “intelligent” systems. These are software-based systems which monitor and analyse the video from the cameras for various purposes such as detecting packages left behind, which direction someone is walking down a corridor, whether groups of people are gathering and so on. The trouble with these systems is that they are expensive, tricky to set-up, use and maintain, and their performance and usefulness is questionable. You really don’t want to have to call in an expensive specialist engineer every time a camera is moved, changed or added to the system.
Facial recognition systems could also be classified in this way. Such systems are really at the stage where ANPR was many years ago : a bit flaky. ANPR is now a mature, useful and highly reliable technology and so it will be, in time, with these more advanced systems, but they have a long way to go.
Conclusions
We are seeing a strong trend towards higher frame rates and better image quality as the technology improves, storage capacity increases and costs come down. IP Video systems have a part to play, but must be deployed into the right applications for the right reasons, and not just because someone has a product they want to sell you.
Some understanding of the technology is essential in order to properly specify and select the best DVR for your purposes. Beware of sales people trying to make your needs suit their favoured product, rather than helping you to match a product to your specific needs. Independent advice is always a good idea, but make sure it’s truly independent.
When choosing a system, concern yourself with the fundamentals : the recorded image quality, ease of use, evidential robustness, data transport, reliability, and not least the service and support available to back up the product.
Clear information on the evidential aspects of digital images is vital, as some people tend to cast doubt about their acceptance in a court of law. In fact, digital images are no more and no less likely to be accepted in court as evidence than analogue recordings (at least in the United Kingdom). What matters is the audit trail. If the audit trail for the evidence (e.g. video tape, hard disk or CD-ROM) is solid and documented such as being sealed in a plastic bag, handed to the police within a very short space of time, with the person responsible for the process available to sign a witness statement to that fact, then there should be little doubt about the authenticity of the material. Remember that evidence is not proof, it is only supporting material for the defence or prosecution to make a case. The courts will make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Anyone who doubts this should consult the 5th report from the House of Lord Select Committee on Science & Technology, published on 03 February 1998 which investigated this very matter.
The Human Rights Act 1998 (the "Act") came into force on 2nd October 2000 and incorporates certain of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Therefore, Convention rights can be relied upon in UK court cases, which was not possible before 2nd October, 2000.
In this brief guide only the key features of the HRA that have particular relevance to CCTV will be highlighted. The guide is designed to provide information, not legal advice, about the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a complex piece of legislation. Legal advice should be sought before any action is undertaken as a result of the Act and a check should be made to see whether the law has changed since the time this guide was written.
Human Rights Act 1998
The Act sets out general principles rather than detailed legal rules. These rights fall, broadly speaking, into two categories:
Absolute rights – i.e. the right to life (Article 2); the right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3); the right to marry and found a family (Article 12). These rights are unqualified.
Qualified rights – these are rights which may be interfered with or restricted by the state, provided that this can be shown to be necessary for a specified purpose under the Convention. Although the specified purposes differ between the various rights protected, there are a number of common purposes that apply, i.e. to the right to privacy (Article 8), the right to freedom of expression (Article 10) and the right to freedom of association (Article 11). These rights may be restricted in the interests of
· national security; or
· public safety; or
· for the protection of health or morals; or
· for the prevention of disorder or crime.
The Act protects individuals or groups of individuals and also extends protection to "non-governmental bodies", i.e. companies have enforceable human rights as well as individuals.
Section 6(1) of the Act makes all public authorities subject to the provisions of the Convention and makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right, unless legislation specifically requires it to do so. This section also includes a failure to act, thus placing public authorities under both negative and positive obligations. Therefore, it is not be enough for public authorities to refrain from violating the rights of individuals, they may have to take positive steps to protect rights from violation by others
During parliamentary debates, there two types of public authorities have been identified:
(i) obvious public authorities - those that are recognised as being plainly a public authority including, but not limited to:
· Central and local government
· the Police and military,
· the Prison Service
· Customs & Excise
· courts and tribunals and regulatory bodies such as Inland Revenue, Financial Services Authority, etc.
The Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament are included in the definition of obvious public authorities but neither House in the Westminster Parliament is defined as an obvious public authority.
(ii) organisations that carry out both public and private functions - such as the Legal Aid Board, Railtrack and the Press Complaints Commission. This definition will undoubtedly involve arguments about the nature of the role being undertaken by a particular organisation. There are issues around CCTV itself, for example, where systems are owned and run by the police there is little doubt that the systems are controlled by a public authority and therefore subject to the new Act. On the other hand, where the system is owned and operated by, for example, a trade association it is not so clear. It could be argued that this is a private body that only undertakes private functions for itself but if the trade association is operating a system in a public place for crime prevention purposes, using public money, it is in fact carrying out a public function. It is not clear, at this stage, how the courts will define this dual role but good practice would be that organisations operating CCTV systems in public places should be aware of, and comply, with Article 8 requirements.
The Act primarily places a duty on public authorities as state players and not on private individuals or bodies. However, there has been legal argument as to how far private individuals and companies will be able to enforce their human rights against other private individuals or companies i.e. will private investigators carrying out surveillance activities be liable to challenge for unlawful conduct under Article 8?
It appears that, although initially, the courts will be reluctant to include private law actions within the remit of the Act, this will become inevitable in the longer term. In the end, the rights are going to affect all areas of our law.
Set out below are some of the human rights covered by the HRA:
Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
This concerns the protection of human life and prohibits the taking of life and places on the state a positive duty to protect life. There are some exclusions for deaths arising from legitimate acts of war or where death has been caused by reasonable force when defending someone from unlawful violent.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
This is an absolute right and is not subject to qualification.
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, or persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest of detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. This is qualified in circumstances of conviction by a competent court, for non-compliance of a lawful court order and lawful arrest. Claims to date have been mainly related to the arrest or detention of criminals or those under investigation.
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal office has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
This article applies to both civil rights and criminal charges and entitles everyone to a fair and, in most cases public, hearing in a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Various areas of criminal law could be affected by this article such as covert surveillance, entrapment and issues of evidence such as the prosecution avoiding disclosure of evidence to the defence because of its sensitivity.
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.
This article is self-explanatory.
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
This provides for the right to a private and family life in a person’s home and in correspondence. Right to privacy in the home has been extended in some cases to business premises or the workplace where private and professional lives "overlap". This article has been invoked most frequently in relation to the use of CCTV cameras both in private and public places and confidentiality of personal data. There are a number of exceptions and limitations to this article so as to balance the individual's rights against the public interest. Limits can be justified if they are prescribed by law and they are necessary for the prevention of crime, protection of public health, national security and so on.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Everyone has the right to freedom of religion but this can be limited. This covers all private and personal beliefs, religions, atheism etc. but not political or ideological beliefs. Churches and other religious associations are capable of enforcing rights under this article so long as the body in question is not associated with making profit (such as the Church of Scientology).
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. “Expression” covers the imparting and receiving of information and need not be verbal (i.e. wearing badges or a particular dress code can amount to expression). This freedom is subject to protect the reputation and rights of others and to prevent disclosure of confidential information. It also requires special regard as to the disclosure of information in the journalistic sense particularly where such disclosure is in the public interest.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forced, of the police or of the administration of the State.
This article extends to all peaceful meetings and demonstrations whether in a public or private place and the right to join a trade union and political parties. Restrictions allow police or the armed forces to enforce lawful restrictions on demonstrations in interests of national security, public safety, provocation of disorder and crime.
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
This does not allow members of the same sex to marry each other and the Article is subject to a restriction on based on the national laws. This right is limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex and consequently transsexuals and gays have not established that this should extend to marriage between two person of the same biological sex. In the UK it is also limited by legislation to those aged 16 years and older.
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
This can only operate within the ambit of another convention right. It is not a general equal treatment guarantee.
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
This provides that every natural legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 on CCTV
Article 8 of the Human Rights law states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Legal cases show that it has been interpreted widely and applied to a broad range of circumstances. It has, for instance, been used to cover telephone tapping and use of bugging devices; it has been applied to prisoners and their right to send and receive private communications; it covers sexual life, so that a prohibition on homosexual acts in private between consenting adult partners has been held to be an unjustified interference with the right to privacy. More recently, it has been successfully argued in several environmental cases including a case where a chemical factory created a health hazard to local people.
Although CCTV itself has yet to be the subject of a case coming before the European Court, it is generally accepted that it can give rise to privacy issues in two particular ways: (i) through its surveillance role; and (ii) through its information-gathering role.
In its surveillance role, CCTV will usually be operated overtly with the cameras being sited in public places or in places where the public have free access, such as a shopping mall. The European Court has made it clear that people are entitled to rely upon a degree of expectation of privacy even in public places, although this is clearly less than private.
In its information-gathering role, CCTV has direct implications for what is referred to as "informational privacy rights". The implications of data gathering are discussed in further detail under the Data Protection Act 1998 discussion paper available on this website.
Once it is established then that technology such as CCTV has the potential to interfere with privacy rights Article 8 (as a qualified right) requires that three tests have to be applied if the interference is to be lawful.
(1) First, the interference must be undertaken "in accordance with the law". In other words, there must be a statutory legal basis for allowing the state to interfere in the particular way alleged; it is not good enough merely to follow a voluntary code of practice or internal guidelines.
(2) Second, the aim of the interference must fall within one of the exceptions to Article 8 if it is to be lawful. These are the exceptions that allow the right of privacy to be restricted i.e. to protect national security, public safety, public health and morals, the rights of others or prevent public disorder or crime.
(3) The third test is that the restriction fulfils a pressing social need and is proportionate in how it responds to that need. This means that it cannot just be asserted that the interference is necessary to protect public safety, for example; there has to be concrete evidence that there is a genuine threat to public safety and this is an appropriate way of responding.
There are two broad areas where CCTV may be vulnerable to a legal challenge when applying the three Article 8 tests:
First, is the fact that the setting up of CCTV systems is not subject to any statutory regulations. Many argue that a correct interpretation of Article 8 requires that the state has a positive obligation to regulate all CCTV systems both public and private because of their potential to interfere with privacy rights. A number of European countries have recently introduced such regulations; for example, in Denmark all CCTV systems are subject to a licence being granted which must take account of people’s right to privacy. Also, conditions may be attached such as where the camera is placed, how it is monitored and whether, for example, it can ever be combined with an auditory facility. A special licence is required if video recordings are to be retained particularly for crime purposes.
The 5th report from the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science & Technology, published on 03 February 1998, strongly supported the need for a regulatory scheme for CCTV.
Second, the 1998 Data Protection Act may be unable to provide sufficient safeguards to cover some of the more advanced technologies that can be used in combination with CCTV. Technological developments are likely to introduce new and more intrusive uses for CCTV material, i.e. when CCTV is used, not just as a tool to prevent crime, but instead to detect it. An example of this is when CCTV footage is combined with facial recognition systems to identify people. This is already in use in other situations, such as football grounds. Perhaps equally important are the moves to create pictorial databases by way of the new driver’s licence (which has an attached photograph) and passport photographs. These will provide huge databases against which CCTV images can be compared. This suggests that high-street CCTV systems potentially offer unique surveillance opportunities which could be in breach of the Human Rights Act.
Another area of concern for CCTV users, arising out of Article 8, is that of employee surveillance. Many employers routinely, or as part of a specific investigation into an employee’s activities, monitor employees’ use of e-mail or Internet and tape/listen into employees’ phone calls. Employees may also be filmed by way of CCTV. Article 8 has been held by the European Court of Human Rights to cover activities in the workplace and that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to personal matters, notwithstanding that they are at work or using work facilities. Therefore if employers wish to carry out this type of monitoring they should take should make it absolutely clear to employees that surveillance is conducted and inform employees of what constitutes authorised use of their systems and that use may be monitored, thus minimising the expectation of privacy. The following points should be considered.
Conclusion
It is clear that the Human Rights Act, by incorporating a right to privacy into UK domestic law, does have important implications for CCTV systems especially those run by public authorities. There can be no dispute that surveillance (at least where it is secret) constitutes an interference with an individual’s right to private life and in some cases, his home, thus breaching Article 8. In the longer term, Article 8 will mean that the UK government is obliged to introduce specific statutory regulations and controls over CCTV. In the meantime, until statutory regulations are in place, organisations operating CCTV systems in public places should be aware of, and comply, with the requirements of the 1998 Human Rights Act.
In recent times, we as a manufacturer have noticed that some of the old misgivings, prejudices and downright ignorance about the real implications of recording digitally are starting to fall away. However it’s probably a