Comment by Big Brother Watch - officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies.

Following on from my previous article on this subject I've become aware of an article on the  Big Brother Watch   website on this subject (Unmanned airborne CCTV set to monitor us from on high) by Dylan Sharpe, campaign manager of the organisation.

He makes the following comment:

"However, by far the most worrying part of a story that is sure to shock any right-thinking individual is the following:

...officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year.

Expanding the level of surveillance in this country is bad. Doing it by sending unmanned drones into the skies to watch for petty pointless crimes like bad driving while the number of stabbings and shootings rise is worse. But to talk about selling the data these drones provide to private companies is absolutely outrageous.

If these plans succeed, not only will their use effectively turn Britain into a police state, in which every citizen can be closely monitored by those in authority, we will become a nation in fear of our government - the complete opposite of how a democracy is supposed to function."

Is he right in what he says or is he just a scaremonger?

An article appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the 5th January 2010 entitled (Number of crimes caught on CCTV falls by 70 per cent, Metropolitan Police admits) in which the point is made that;

"Prosecutions linked to CCTV have fallen in parts of Britain, raising questions about the true impact of the security cameras."

The author Christopher Hope goes on to say

"Britain has the most CCTV cameras per head of any country in the world, with people said to be caught on camera as many as 300 times a day.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act to The Daily Telegraph show a 71 per cent fall in the number of crimes "in which CCTV was involved" in the Metropolitan Police area, from 416,000 in 2003/4 to 121,770 in 2008/9."

If the effectiveness of CCTV cameras in the prevention and solving of crime is in doubt what is the benefit of police forces and other government bodies spending limited funds on these new expensive flying spies in the sky.

As is stated in the article;

"A report by a House of Lords committee last year found that £500 million was spent on new cameras in the 10 years to 2006, money which could have been spent on street lighting or neighbourhood crime prevention initiatives."

If the use for protection of the public from crime and criminals is in doubt, does that mean the main prerogative for these extra police and government eyes is for monitoring of UK citizens with the future objective of unnecessary levels of intrusion and controlof the lives of the UK citizens?

Another Spy in the Sky - More surveillance by the Police

It's reported in the Guardian (CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones), in the Mail Online (Military-style spy planes 'to be used to target civilians in the UK'), and in the Times Motorists to be monitored by police drones that unmanned spy drones are set to be used in Britain to spy on drivers, campaigners, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers. A group of government agencies led by Kent Police has commissioned arms manufacturer BAE systems to adapt military-style planes for civilian use.

The consortium putting forward the proposal also suggested the drones could be used by councils to combat 'fly-posting, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, abnormal loads, waste management'.

In addition to the Kent Police five other police forces have signed up to the scheme, which could pave the way for countrywide adoption of the technology for surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering.

With the UK as reportedly the country with the most surveillance cameras watching the public's every move, is there a need for more?

Is this for the protection of, or for the control of, the citizens?