Police in Hobart have been granted real-time access to footage from hundreds of city council CCTV cameras in a move labelled “so intrusive and oppressive” by the Australian Privacy Foundation.
The CCTV partnership between Tasmania police and the City of Hobart was announced on Thursday but has been operating secretly for weeks.
The scheme provides police with unfettered access to “view live, play back, record and download” footage from the council’s 330 camera views.
The City of Hobart owns the cameras and associated data but police officers can access the footage at any time via a “portal” at Hobart police station.
The chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, David Vaile, said 330 camera views was an “absolutely massive number”.
“What’s the purpose? What’s the oversight and accountability mechanism? And why do they need it?” he said. “Is there an out-of-control rash of crime? Hobart is one of the safer cities.”
The lord mayor of Hobart, Anna Reynolds, said the distribution of the live CCTV to police – thought to be a first for an Australian capital city – meant it would be seen by “people who need it most”.
Asked at a press conference on Thursday if there were any privacy concerns around the footage and its use, Reynolds said the CCTV cameras weren’t aimed “into private spaces” and would help protect “public safety and public order”.
“People aren’t sitting there monitoring the cameras all the time,” she said. “There’s an acceptance that there’s a lot of good having eyes on the ground. These are an insurance policy to ensure people know we can follow crimes – if a criminal act is undertaken in the city, people will be seen.”
Police commander Jason Elmer said the camera footage – beamed into stations for the past three weeks following a successful trial in July – had assisted in a “number of matters” including apprehending offenders following incidents and monitoring the welfare of people in severe weather events.
“Police can access screens anytime – we don’t have anyone monitoring full-time, but if anything occurs [they] can jump on pretty quickly,” Elmer said.
“If we had an incident in the CBD – a person of interest – we’re able to track that person using all of these cameras, we can zoom in … and we can follow them from one location to the other by watching them on the CCTV and providing real-time directions to our police on the ground.”
At the time of the July trial, the acting lord mayor, Zelinda Sherlock, said the collaboration with Tasmania police aimed to “create a secure and supportive atmosphere in Wellington Court and surrounds, where businesses can thrive, and employees and visitors feel safe”.
Vaile said evidence out of the UK – which has a high concentration of CCTV cameras – suggested “mass surveillance isn’t going to work”.
“It doesn’t have a deterrent effect because you can’t watch all of it and it can just push bad behaviour behind the corner,” he said.
Vaile said it was concerning the cameras had initially been sending footage “secretly” to the police – with the scheme running for weeks before the public announcement.
“You need transparency, accountability and openness for something so intrusive and oppressive,” he said. “This is a massive intrusion on rights you would only do with a desperate need.”
Dr Yvette Maker, the co-author of a recent Tasmania Law Reform Institute report, has previously said: “Currently there is no comprehensive privacy regulation in Tasmania. Rather, privacy protection is fragmented across different laws that protect different types of privacy in different specific circumstances.”
The institute argues Tasmanian laws should be reformed “as much as possible [to] be consistent with those of the commonwealth and states”.
In New South Wales, privacy protections were greater than in Tasmania, Vaile said. If a local council wanted to use CCTV in a public place, it had to be for lawful purposes directly related to its functions or activities.
NSW government guidelines state police cannot routinely monitor CCTV cameras and can only access footage in “emergency situations” – as identified by control room operators. In such instances, live footage can be transferred to police to help their investigation.
In Victoria, police don’t constantly monitor CCTV systems and must enter a memorandum of understanding with councils to obtain direct access.
Dr Ausma Bernot, a lecturer in technology and crime at Griffith University, said Hobart was the first city she knew of where police received live CCTV council footage.
“The questions it raises are: how is the [police] camera room staffed? Who finds the information required? The [Thursday] announcement touched on very few details.”
Bernot said police being able to directly access footage might be a “positive development” as, in most cases, council workers or contractors were trusted to monitor vast amounts of footage.
“There is an expectation of a capability to surveil people – if of interest, it would eventually reach the police, whether operated by council and given to police on request or used directly,” she said.
As for the usefulness of CCTV to monitor and prevent crimes, Bernot said the jury was out.
“Is the money warranted? It may or may not be,” she said. “We need more transparency on how police are using CCTV.”
