Surveillance Ireland: is CCTV the ‘fix’ it promises to be?

In April 2021 grainy surveillance footage circulated of a teenage girl disappearing between a stationary train and platform. She had been attempting to board a commuter Dart service in Dublin when a number of youths forced her off-balance and under the carriage.

She was pulled to safety by fast-acting passengers and staff — and the incident was captured in detail by CCTV.

Widely circulated on social and traditional media channels, the footage illustrated two fundamentals about the use of surveillance cameras: a year later it helped secure two court convictions relating to the incident but an Irish Rail investigation into how the footage had been leaked highlighted data protection concerns in a world with increasing numbers of cameras.

On city streets, in department stores, on public transport, somebody is watching. In waiting rooms and reception areas, offices, in schools and universities, in parks, endless hours of surveillance data are recorded and stored.

Michael Harding: A funeral reminds me of the sweetness of silence, when conversation was more than just chatter

---

The Fall Guy review: Who ordered a half-baked revival of a Lee Majors TV show? Anyone?

---

Inside the early morning operation to move asylum seekers from Mount Street encampment

---

Dave Hannigan: Grotesque Tyson-Paul spectacle the very antithesis of a real sporting event

---

[ Gardaí will be able to use real-time facial recognition under planned legislation ]

Four years ago sweeping new data protection laws came into force across Europe. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ushered in a new era in which the boundless opportunities of surveillance technology were reconciled with the privacy rights of individuals. This has influenced legislative change domestically.

A new Garda Síochána (Digital Recording) Bill will give legal clarity to three key areas: garda body cameras, due to be rolled out next year; automatic number plate recognition (ANPR); and, perhaps most importantly, community and Garda CCTV schemes that monitor hundreds of locations. Separately, the Department of the Environment’s circular economy legislation allows for greater use of cameras to help combat illegal dumping.

Architects of these new laws stress that civil liberties and legal safeguards are paramount but not everyone is convinced.

“When you have products or devices that carry out surveillance that impact various rights you have to have legal safeguards in [place] to protect those rights,” said Olga Cronin, policy officer at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL). “And so when you’re talking about the development of cameras, CCTV, surveillance tools, really those legal safeguards should be developing as robustly in tandem with those tools.”

The consumer website Comparitech said there were about 770 million surveillance cameras around the world last year. The industry researcher IHS Markit predicted that number would surpass 1 billion by the end of the year.

Finding out how many cameras are in Ireland is difficult given their unregistered use in private and public settings. Citing security reasons, gardaí will not specify the locations of the CCTV camera schemes it authorises. There are 47 under Section 38(3)(a) of the Garda Síochána Act, those operated by gardaí, covering more than 700 locations. Add to that 61 “C” schemes established by community groups and local authorities.

Insp Sean Earley of the Garda National Crime Prevention Unit (GNCPU) says research — notably a 2019 international study covering 40 years of data — shows the benefits of cameras in reducing offending.

There is “strong evidence that it is particularly useful in reducing crime in car parks and, to a lesser extent, residential areas”, he says. “The most significant reductions were for drug crimes, vehicle crime and property crime. There was no evidence of an effect on violent crime and disorder.”

Actively monitored, or live CCTV, is more effective, particularly in combination with other “interventions” such as street lighting.

The research found that cameras did not have a statistically significant effect on crime in towns or cities. On public transport they had little impact, although this may be due to limited research.

“When I conduct a security review on a domestic or commercial premises I will prioritise physical security measures over electronic security,” said Insp Earley. “CCTV recordings of thefts are all very good for evidence purposes but I’d rather the theft did not occur in the first place and robust physical security measures are more effective.”

Although technological advances such as image filtering for people’s age, weight and height stand to make CCTV more important to policing over time, its use will prompt continued scrutiny in Ireland.

In 2018 an investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) found seven pole-mounted ANPR cameras in Co Meath had no legal justification. They have since been removed and are not being used elsewhere, although incoming legislation may change that.

In its report the DPC said there was no “explanation or justification” for the ANPR technology. It referred to “a permanent tension” between surveillance and civil liberty considerations “such as the ability to go about one’s daily business free from unnecessary supervision”.

Last December Limerick City and County Council was fined €110,000 for its use of traffic CCTV that included ANPR capability.

“We would be very concerned about an assumption that this can simply be rolled out, for example, on all the community schemes or the Garda schemes just because companies are selling it,” Deputy Data Commissioner Tony Delaney said. His office is undertaking a continuous nationwide audit of CCTV use by local authorities and other bodies, and feels its direction to gardaí to remove ANPR has already set a high bar.

“That’s an example of where new technology is being promoted as a solution but without consideration to, well, is it actually necessary? We find that the ANPR is highly intrusive because of the data logging that it does.”

The new legislation will seek to give greater clarity. Under the new regime a local authority and gardaí will act as joint data controllers, disposing of concerns around community organisations and their access to, and storage of, data.

Community schemes have been praised for helping those in rural areas, particularly, to feel more secure. This sense is heightened with the threat, or perceived threat, of urban crime gangs using motorways as access routes to isolated homes. According to the Department of Justice 35 locations have been approved for partial State funding for community schemes, amounting to almost €1 million.

Residents of Clane, Co Kildare, have been awaiting the new legislation to install theirs. Cllr Padraig McEvoy, who sits on the local Joint Policing Committee, explained that much work had been done to ensure the chosen camera system is compatible with that operated by the local authority, making access and storage more efficient.

Clane will have between eight and 10 cameras which can monitor activity on rural roads between the N4 and N7, in and out of Dublin. “The motorway is a key thing,” explained Cllr McEvoy.

However, such schemes bring with them a fear of proliferation. Olga Cronin at the ICCL said even where such tools become more easily available, society should reflect on what levels of use are desirable. In response to similar concerns raised by the Oireachtas Justice Committee, the Department of Justice said it believed sufficient safeguards are in place to control any undue spread.

“The prevalence of CCTV has really kind of ramped up in the last 10 years particularly,” said David Phelan, a partner at Hayes Solicitors who advises companies on CCTV use. “Partly [due to] the cost and ease by which it can be installed is that much less.

“And that’s probably led to more of an engagement with the whole question about how the data protection principles apply to CCTV, but the law and the principles have been around pre-2018.”

A renewed focus has led to a shift in public awareness. In recent years the DPC has noticed complaints relating to domestic CCTV cameras overtaking those about workplaces and businesses; the majority of 1,661 CCTV related contacts since 2018 have focused on private homes.

The public rarely complain about State use of CCTV but, says Delaney, the DPC is “inundated [with] neighbours complaining about other neighbours” who put up a camera.

In most cases there are no data protection issues, the operator is using cameras appropriately “within their property perimeter” and “for a purely personal or household activity”.

In its last annual report the DPC noted the vast majority of such complaints were made in the context of wider disputes over issues ranging from right-of-way and alleged harassment to antisocial behaviour or criminal damage, “which would be better addressed through mediation or the courts”.

So long as domestic equipment is limited to capturing images of people within the perimeter of the owner’s private property, it is not subject to data protection laws or requirements.

Part of the rise in domestic use is due to the increasing availability, sophistication and affordability of equipment. Since he began installing CCTV in the mid-1990s, Alan Campbell of AV Security said Chinese production dominance has precipitated falling prices and advanced quality. A typical four-camera system covering the perimeter and entrance to a house costs €1,100-€1,600.

In the 1990s “there wasn’t many camera systems”, Campbell explained. “The alarm panel back then would have been the [main burglary] deterrent and now the camera system would be.”

The growing use of “dash cams” — in-vehicle on on-bike cameras — also brings a new dimension to CCTV use. Gardaí often appeal to drivers for any footage they may have captured to help investigate traffic incidents or other crimes. As with any other cameras, however, there are, potentially, rules to their use.

In an everyday context individuals may process data such as recordings for purely personal use, however the European Court of Justice says this personal exemption from data protection obligations must be construed narrowly.

“Users of dash cams will need to consider the nature and extent of any recording they undertake,” the DPC offers in its official guidance, “and whether it falls under the purely personal exemption, or whether the recording may fall within the scope of data protection law” as is the case in more obvious settings such as commercial vehicles (taxis and buses) and particularly where audio is involved.

It also notes that publication of recorded material, such as on social media, “cannot be considered to fall within the personal or household exemption”.

In some areas visual surveillance is being billed as a game-changer. Last March the Department of Environment finalised legislation copper-fastening local authorities’ ability to use the technology as a means of fighting illegal dumping and littering.

The issue is raised repeatedly in the Dáil: why can CCTV not be used to catch offenders? With the new Circular Economy Bill that will become possible.

Drones, CCTV and other surveillance technologies will be used to protect local authority inspectors from attack and intimidation.

However, Delaney says cameras must not become an automatic go-to response. “To put up cameras to detect littering, for example, it would need to be a last resort,” says the deputy commissioner, adding that while council officials could make a strong case for its use where serious littering or dumping offences were occurring, it would not offer an overall solution.

“Realistically it’s just one tool. It doesn’t mean it’s going to stop it. If people are aware that the cameras are there they might just go somewhere else. It’s a useful tool for the local authorities to have but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem of the attitude of people,” says Delaney.

“It’s not the total panacea to the littering problem in Ireland.”

The ICCL has also urged restraint. Cronin says the State does not have a right to erect cameras wherever it sees fit. “We’re lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction where that is not allowed.”

The legislation has been a priority of the Department of the Environment, with hopes to have it passed before the summer recess. The surveillance equipment, and the data they capture, is expected to remain strictly controlled. In all cases a demonstrable waste or litter problem would have to be identified and each application for surveillance approved by the head of the local authority.

Such schemes would be subject to review every five years and where the problem was no longer evident, cameras removed. Their presence would be clearly signed and the data collected could not be used for other prosecutions, such as the chance detection of an illegal building extension.

Only approved local authority staff could examine the data although gardaí, in line with existing legislation, would also have access to investigate crimes.

Department officials are satisfied the legislation is fit for purpose from a privacy and civil rights perspective but questions remain about how reliant we may become on CCTV.

“It’s a natural human reaction. There is a problem, there is a solution put forward, it seems like an easy, quick fix and ... members of the public want it because it’s presented to them as the fix,” says Cronin from the ICCL.

“Then politicians come under pressure to roll out that fix. Whereas we really, really need to be careful and interrogate the fix. To see if, in actual fact, it is the fix.”