When we think of surveillance, we tend to imagine traditional surveillance tools like CCTV systems run by local authorities. The use of CCTV has certainly increased since I was a young constable on the Gold Coast in the early 1990s. From a CCTV network of 16 cameras when they were first introduced to the city precinct, the network has grown to more than 500 cameras today.
But surveillance is much more than just CCTV. It now includes things like private home or business security systems, police body-worn cameras (BWC)
and the use of helicopters and drones. And we all have the capacity to
conduct surveillance and gather evidence using the technology contained
in our mobile phones.
These new technologies are changing the way police approach
surveillance. Rather than using surveillance tools reactively to catch
criminals caught in the act on camera, police are now proactively
seeking out criminals in the process of offending and recording the
evidence on the spot.
In the Boston bombing case,
police used footage and images from state, public and private sources
to identify the suspects. CCTV is also proving crucial in identifying
the bombers who staged the recent coordinated attacks in Sri Lanka.
CCTV footage of one of the alleged bombers in Sri Lanka.
Two studies released by the Australian Institute of Criminology last month focused on the use of CCTV by police. The first showed that
where police requested and used CCTV footage, there was an increase in
the rate of matters being solved. The second study showed CCTV footage is highly valued by law enforcement personnel,
with 90% of investigators using the footage when it was available.
Two-thirds were able to use it for the reason they had requested it.
New tools, new capabilities
We are now seeing a move from reactive surveillance to proactive surveillance.
Police body worn cameras (BWCs)
are an example of this. Every police service in Australia is now using
BWCs. Rather than just recording a criminal event by chance, BWCs enable
police to actively seek out those committing offences, and record the
evidence against such offenders.
SA Police rolls out body worn video cameras.
Queensland Police requires its officers to record whenever
the officer is acting in the performance of his or her duties. The
device must be recording prior to, and during, the exercising of a
police power or applying a use of force.
This requirement can be problematic since the officer must physically
start the recording. In the shooting matter of Justine Damond in the
United States, officers were criticised for having their recording
devices turned off during the shooting.
Some services have attempted to deal with this issue, such as Western Australia Police for instance, by having the BWC automatically begin recording when an officer draws their firearm.
Even traditional CCTV is becoming proactive with the introduction of mobile CCTV cameras that can be moved as required to areas of community concern.
Many police services are using drones for tasks such as crowd management, surveillance and target acquisition. Queensland and Victoria are just are two states that are committed to the use of drones for policing purposes. In 2017, Queensland Police had a fleet of ten drones.
Facial recognition software was once the thing of Hollywood movies like
Mission Impossible. It’s now a reality, with the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) agreeing to share biometric data, such as drivers licence details and passport photos, between government agencies.
Facial recognition software was
used by police during 2018 Commonwealth games in Queensland. And the
Queensland government has indicated police will continue to use facial
recognition tools – although confusion surrounds when or how it will be
deployed. The ABC has reported that the facial recognition system was so rushed that it lacked the data to operate effectively during the Commonwealth Games.
Facial recognition adds a predictive policing capability to traditional
CCTV systems. In essence, predictive policing or pre-crime policing is
an attempt by law enforcement to disrupt criminal activity by the early
identification of criminal threats.
For example, Operation Nomad saw
a South Australian police visiting suspected and convicted arsonists
when automated number plate recognition alerted them to suspects driving
in fire danger zones. The operation was credited with the reduction of
bushfire related arson.
Fictional eye lens in Mission Impossible 4: Ghost protocol.
Surveillance is changing from being static, fixed and reactive to being
flexible and proactive. The enhanced capabilities helps law enforcement
fight crime, rather than just solve it.
The Coalition government promised A$20 million to increase the number of CCTV cameras across the country. Under the proposal, up to 2,600 cameras would be installed at 500 “crime hot spots”.
While this is a largely positive move, we must ensure that there is
accountability and transparency in the use of these technologies, and
ensure they serve the purposes for which they were intended. An
effective governance regime is essential to instill public confidence in
the use of these technologies.
When we think of surveillance, we tend to imagine traditional surveillance tools like CCTV systems run by local authorities. The use of CCTV has certainly increased since I was a young constable on the Gold Coast in the early 1990s. From a CCTV network of 16 cameras when they were first introduced to the city precinct, the network has grown to more than 500 cameras today.
