Hacker News Reader

Comment by RileyJames | Hacker News Reader

I've been traveling through Europe recently and have been shocked by the sheer number of surveillance cameras in public spaces. It's not uncommon to see 3 - 5 cameras on a single pole.

There is no indication regarding who owns each camera, when it's recording (presumed always), if it has audio, the purpose of the camera and how long the data is retained. This project is awesome, and could be the first step to answering the above questions (and more) for each camera.

View on HN

"Europe" is far too large and diverse for this to be a useful statement.

Do you mean large cities in certain countries, or everywhere in a particular country?

London and generally speaking the UK is full of surveillance cameras, but just this weekend I was unpleasantly surprised to see that a quite remote village in my Eastern European country (close to the middle of nowhere, so to speak) had decided to install a surveillance camera in the middle of their village. There was not much to spy on, apart from cows and 70-year old grandmas, but the camera was still there.

AFAIK London is the most surveilled city in the world, in terms of available state-owned security cameras per capita.

> in terms of available state-owned security cameras

This is wrong. It is the most surveilled but most of the cameras are privately owned.

Probably to keep an eye out for youth groups, they tend to converge in village centers.

It could be that they've had issues with anti-social behaviour or vandalism. These can often occur in small, remote villages that offer little else in the way of entertainment.

I wonder if the camera was even real? I.e. people often install fake cameras because it's cheaper and achieves the same deterrent effect.

fair point.

Large cities primarily: Istanbul, London, Belgrade, Prague are some examples.

I understand they have a purpose for genuine security incidents, such as terrorism attacks, but the lack of transparency in their day to day recording is a concern.

I've taken photos of many locations, I'll add them to the map.

> I understand they have a purpose for genuine security incidents, such as terrorism attacks

Presumably they're installed primarily because of day-to-day crimes, not terrorism prevention.

That can depend -- at least in London, many government-controlled cameras were initially installed for terrorism prevention and investigation. (Just last week someone was arrested for leaving a bomb at a station, although this is now very rare compared to the 1980s-1990s.)

The majority of cameras are privately owned, and are supposed to prevent normal crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_steel_(London)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tube-bomb-suspect-damon...

Right, I forgot that UK had its terrorism period during 80s/90s. Thanks.

Sounds a lot like UK. As someone else pointed out - Europe is way to diverse to call as a single entity with this scope. Large cities in UK are quite heavily monitored, but if you look at Europe in general, then the surveillance is centered around government buildings, embassies etc.

In Denmark you can have quite a lot of cameras in shops and outside petrol stations, which is the business owners way to up their security. But those are NOT allowed to film anything facing away from the premises, meaning you can't just film people on the street from these cameras.

Here in Nottingham they've started installing very bright street lights (unpleasantly bright imo) that are on full illumination all night.

One of the justifications is that it makes it easier to see stuff on CCTV.

> those are NOT allowed to film anything facing away from the premises

Makes sense, but any idea how they verify this? Would someone report a camera they think is facing outwards and this would be investigated? Or are there random checks?

To the best of my knowledge, it's not enforced. And if it is, it is probably only when someone feels violated and as you say report it. I'm pretty sure the control is next to nonexistent.

The rules in the UK are pretty much the same as in Denmark, as the limitations of both are down to the EU Data Protection Directive.

Recording that includes public spaces are subject to strict reporting requirements, and both those covering private and public spaces are subject to privacy rules regarding handling of the data, and subject access.

Whether that will remain the case once the UK leaves the EU is another matter..

> I've been traveling through Europe recently and have been shocked by the sheer number of surveillance cameras in public spaces. It's not uncommon to see 3 - 5 cameras on a single pole.

98% of street cameras are private, they're used to watch for store fronts, bins, cars parked on street etc. If you have one, you get much better insurance deal for your business.

I guess it depends on which country in Europe. e.g. UK is well known for its cameras. In most countries the law requires to have signs indicating that CCTV is in operation but still doesn't identify who owns the feed and who has access to it and I think it doesn't include government controlled cameras.

> In most countries

Can we avoid these sweeping statements? They're at best useless, and often misleading, if not simply wrong.

The UK rules are here [0]. Signs (or similar) identifying the operator of the CCTV cameras are required.

Transport for London (running the London Underground and London Buses, and some trains) is a government body, and has their sign here [1, PDF], which includes a phone number.

[0] https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

[1] http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-supplementary-signs-standard.p...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com