RiskUKSeptember2017

Lone Worker Security and Safety
worn video’s deployment to be based on
legitimate reasons, particularly in terms of
undertaking a privacy impact assessment.
Deployment scenarios
At the core of BS 8593 is an implicit
understanding that there are four different
deployment scenarios, any one of which might
be appropriate to an organisation seeking to
deploy body-worn video. Each scenario
considers how a body-worn video device shares
and stores its data.
Capturing evidence from body-worn video
devices deployed on members of staff, and
notably those working alone and/or out in the
community, brings with it many other unique
challenges. What if audio is recorded? What if
other, non-incident related individuals are
captured in the video? Is a recording allowed if
it happens in someone’s home or on private
property? These and many other questions will
start to arise – and demand answers – as more
and more deployment scenarios occur.
Current body-worn video solutions tend to
record video and store footage locally to the
body-worn device. That data is then extracted
from the device at a later point in time, typically
to a docking station, by way of the removal of
an SD card or by using a secure Wi-Fi
connection to the employer’s network.
In this current scenario, it’s evident that while
useful visual evidence has been captured, its
use can only occur at a later point in time and
after any actual risk incident has passed. That
being so, to deploy a current body-worn style
device for a lone worker simply wouldn’t help
with ensuring an immediate escalation in the
event of an incident.
Moving to a scenario where the video’s
streamed in real-time via an appropriate
cellular connection clearly provides an
advantage in that it can be used immediately
during an incident. It also helps benefit the
operator based in an Alarm Receiving Centre
(ARC) or Control Room in that they’re far more
likely to be able to ascertain on a swifter basis
the nature and severity of the episode, all of
which further helps with the speed of incident
management and ensures that low level or false
alarm incidents are not passed to the police.
Data protection issues
The current scenario of recording locally to the
body-worn video device brings with it some
significant data protection challenges if, for
example, the lone worker has an ability to view
or replay the recordings made on the device,
and specifically if non-incident related
personal data is captured on that recording.
To date, the majority of deployments of bodyworn
video devices have involved police
officers: individual workers who are honest,
upstanding and able to follow instruction,
process and rules. Even then there have been
incidents whereby body-worn devices have
been removed and stolen by assailants, thus
introducing the potential for data breaches.
If body-worn video devices are to become
commonplace for other lone workers (ie those
who are not police officers), then ensuring that
those devices and their retained video data
remain intact and are used correctly becomes a
challenge for the employer. Moving to a model
whereby the video is streamed live and not
stored locally on the device will help in
ensuring that all employers stick to the GDPR.
One final observation for those employers of
lone workers hoping to use video for when risks
occur during engagement with clients, patients
or service users in their own homes. The
employer will need to make absolutely sure
that there are very clear policy guidelines in
place for those workers if and when they need
to use video to record an incident. Recording
needs to be warranted and the owner/occupier
of the property pre-notified that recording
could occur and under what scenarios.
There must be an open book approach with
clients/patients/service users that such
technology is being used to ensure the safety
of staff members entering personal property. If
a recording occurs which is warranted then it
must be clear to the recorded party that such
recordings will be deleted and details given in
terms of the timeframe for this procedure.
Equally, if recordings are warranted –
because an incident has occurred that causes
concern for the safety of the worker – then it
should be clearly noted that recording is taking
place. Any non-incident related personal data
captured as an aside must be redacted before
that video is used or shared by the employer.
Companies wishing to supply body-worn
video systems need to be investing now in their
ARCs, processes and personnel in order to
ensure they’re better placed to assist their end
user customers in making certain that video
data is perfectly safe. They also need to be
working to ensure that, if a body-worn video
user’s personal safety is at risk, escalation of
the incident in terms of summoning assistance
is the fastest and most effective route possible.
Craig Swallow: Managing
Director of SoloProtect
“The new British Standard 8593 was drawn up to address a
gap in guidance due to the differences between the use of
CCTV and body-worn video”
31
www.risk-uk.com