27-10draft

IS NOW
Combining thermal security cameras with video management systems.
www.flir.com
Untitled-20 1 18/02/16 10:18
need for standards:
Body of
evidence
56
Pictured above: An
Axon body worn
camera
About Mike Gillespie
The MD of the
information security
consultancy Advent
IM is a director of the
Security Institute.
He was among the
speakers at our
ST17 conference at
Glasgow last month.
Visit www.advent-im.
co.uk.
Our regular contributor Mike Gillespie
considers the deployment of Body
Worn Video (BWV) by all manner of
users, notably the UK police.
The argument for? That BWV
will prove to be a useful
tool in crime fighting, and
most importantly will have a major
impact on assaults on officers. As
with all good debates of course there
is also a swell of argument against
deployment, citing invasions of
privacy, potential for misuse and lack
of evidence of effectiveness, only of
benefit after an event, offering the
illusion of safety, not actual safety.
Not surprisingly, adoption has been
dogged by controversy. The use of
the Rialto study to heavily influence
the approach and validation of BWV
has been described by its authors
as flawed, saying that “most of the
claims made by advocates and critics
of the technology remain untested”.
They also highlight that the study
suggested that police, governments
and researchers should invest more in
‘replicating the findings’ and research
more before a widespread roll-out.
Backdrop
It is unclear what other research went
on before the large-scale roll-outs
across forces began; it certainly hasn’t
been widely published. However,
OCTOBER 2017 PROFESSIONAL SECURITY
against a backdrop of violence against
officers and fewer officers available,
some of the benefits of BWV seemed
so attractive and with the support
of influential figures like the then
Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe,
its adoption became inevitable
while critics and those on the fence
remain unconvinced. Readers will be
unsurprised, given my vocal opinions
on the balance between security and
privacy, that I too have an opinion.
Standard
In the midst of all of this debate,
the British Standards Institute (BSI)
recently announced the launch of a
new standard: BS 8593: 2017 Code
of practice for the deployment and
use of Body Worn Video. I have
always been a keen supporter of
standardisation. Standards allow us
to review and manage processes in
an objective, pragmatic and practical
way. There is a lot of emotion and
conflicting opinion, largely based
around assumption, swirling around
BWV and surveillance in general.
This isn’t always helpful when you
are talking about roll-out on this scale
and at this cost. The consultation for
the development of this important
standard appears balanced and
comprehensive; including the Home
Office (although it is not policespecific,
police have been the greatest
adopters), the Surveillance Camera
Commissioner, the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and
Big Brother Watch, to name a few.
The standard provides a considered
response to widespread concerns
about data security and privacy, not
unlike similar concerns that we have
seen about widespread use of CCTV,
and covers training, data protection,
functionality (including encryption),
and legitimate deployment.
Quality
While safety of police officers is
hugely important, and I am never
heard to object to anything that
contributes to safer working for them,
it wasn’t the only consideration.
Improving quality of evidence was
also a deciding factor in adoption.
To convince those opposed to the
police use of this technology, there
needs to be measurable, quantifiable
results. While there has been some key
improvements in evidence gathering
in crimes such as domestic violence,
there has yet to be any conclusive
statistics or trend analysis that this is
an across the board improvement. Of
course, these improvements are only
going to become apparent if good
quality statistical analysis is taking
place, and it does not appear to be.
Data
Indeed, following a Freedom of
Information request by Big Brother
Watch, the Crown Prosecution Service
made an alarming admission. The
CPS do not hold data on BWV results
‘in a retrievable manner’. The FoI
request had asked for crime data on
cases involving BWV, both when a
defendant has entered a guilty plea
having seen the footage of themselves
and also how often BWV footage was
requested from police. It appears that
it was not possible to fulfil the request
as it would require a manual review
of case records. So, whilst we think
that BWV must improve prosecution
of criminals, we can’t actually prove
it yet. Where so much public funding
is being spent, especially in the area
of law enforcement, and has come
at a time when public sector budgets
are under ever more strain, it is
particularly vital to realise the best
possible outcomes from the use of this
technology, for everyone involved.
Start
If we are to determine whether or
not this technology is effective, fit
for purpose or as critics insist, is
overly invasive and costly with little
return on investment, then we need
to offer proper evidence to back up
every assertion. That means police
forces need to keep better records,
the CPS need to start correlating the
effectiveness of BWV in prosecutions,
good quality data needs to be available
and interrogable, and the benefits felt
by officers on the street and the public
alike proven. A wide scale uptake of
this standard; at least as wide scale as
the commitment to the roll-out of the
technology in the first place, may go
a long way in ensuring that this heavy
investment was a wise one by police.
A standard is great place to start. p
www.professionalsecurity.co.uk
p56 Gillespie 27-10.indd 1 16/09/2017 19:08