Yorkshire Post, Monday August 15, 1999
Considering he's Mr Average, a remarkable number of people are interested in his daily routine. Most of the time, he is oblivious to them, the countless unseen strangers who watch from a distance.
Their gaze is fixed on him the moment he leaves his council flat to drop the children at school. Surveillance cameras follow them to the lift, where another "eye" records their descent.
In his car, he is only vaguely aware of signs indicating anti-speed cameras, and he no longer notices the closed-circuit TV monitoring his daughter's nursery. At his son's school, he doesn't know they are being filmed by a covert camera secreted in the building opposite and sweeping the playground for signs of drug-dealing. Or that their parting has been captured by the school's own observation equipment trained on every entry and exit point.
Mr Average drives on to work, stopping at a red light. Just as well, because had he jumped it, in court the prosecution would have presented the pictorial evidence. He stops to refuel at a garage "under 24-hour video surveillance", and at the virtually unstaffed railway station his every move is recorded on tape. There's no respite at the office, where cameras peer down on the reception area and beyond. At lunchtime, he's studied by the High Street surveillance cameras linked to the CCTV control room in the town hall.
He makes a phone call, not realising that he's being captured on a hidden lens installed by BT trying to catch kiosk vandals. While shopping, in-store security cameras keep tabs on him, as they will at the cash-machine, during his hospital visit, in the football stadium and afterwards at the pub. Virtually every aspect of his life outside home is being followed by someone.
Dr Clive Norris created the snapshot to illustrate the extent to which millions of us are being monitored. He's calculated that on an average day, the individual moving through public (and, increasingly, private) places may be recorded by more than 300 cameras on a variety of CCTV systems.
"The British have become the most filmed population in the world," he claims, "to the extent that it's now virtually impossible to move without being photographed and recorded."
In the mid-1990s, the Tories, in near despair over the seemingly unstoppable rise in crime, embraced surveillance systems as never before. This was Michael Howard, then Home Secretary: "CCTV is a wonderful technological supplement to the police. It spots crimes, identifies law-breakers and helps convict the guilty. CCTV is a real asset to communities, a great deterrent to crime and a huge reassurance to the public".
The Labour Government is equally enthusiastic. Tony Blair has said CCTV is having a "tremendous impact". The surveillance industry couldn't be happier. In the last six years, £500m has been invested in watching over us through a mix of national and local taxes, EU funding and private enterprise.
Hull council alone is bidding for £650,000 from Whitehall to help finance 60 additional cameras to cover streets, multi-storeys and buses. There's no escape for Norris himself. Within yards of the academic's study, CCTV scans the campus car-parks.
Most people, he believes, now regard swivelling, all-seeing cameras as an inevitable part of the scenery and accept the official justification for them that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear.
Consequently, there's been little critical debate about the cost-effectiveness, ethics or long-term implications for civil liberties and privacy of CCTV. The issues are examined in a new book, The Maximum Surveillance Society, co-authored by Norris, who is senior lecturer in criminology at Hull University, and based on the most thorough research ever conducted on the subject.
The almost unquestioned presence of what he describes as the "unforgiving eye" chills him. "What differentiated the free world from the Communist world was that we didn't have a secret police like the KGB or Stasi monitoring our every move. Now millions of hours of CCTV footage is taken every week in this country.
"It can be used for profound social good, like reducing road deaths, but the same technology can also be applied as a means of social and political control. We need to recognise its power, the potential for abuse, and be wary. We are taking away the individual's right to anonymity."
Norris argues that television has helped to "sell" CCTV. "They were made for each other. Add one other ingredient, crime, and you have the perfect marriage. But a marriage that can blur the distinction between entertainment and news; between documentary and spectacle, voyeurism and current affairs."
They came together, unforgettably, through the image of toddler Jamie Bulger being led through a shopping centre to his death at the hands of two other boys. CCTV played its part in catching them, and it's helped solve other high profile cases. Recently, detectives turned to security-camera footage of Jill Dando, filmed in a store shortly before she was murdered, in the hope of prompting a lead. Norris, though, cites examples of where surveillance equipment is leading to injustice. He claims that a shopping centre near Hull is turning away convicted shoplifters as soon as they appear on screen.
He says there's also evidence that the lens is being employed to drive "social undesirables" from malls and other commercial premises. "An informal justice is starting to emerge."
It's hardly the benign message they're seeking to promote through the system in nearby Cottingham. "Smile, You're on Camera. 24hr surveillance. Watching out for you".
The Home Office rattles off numerous examples of CCTV's nationwide effectiveness: a 50 per cent reduction in town-centre burglaries in Thirsk last year; in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1995, burglaries down by 57 per cent, criminal damage by 34 per cent, vehicle crime by 50 per cent, and 400 suspects admitted their guilt when confronted with the filmed evidence.
"We have never said that CCTV is by itself a panacea for combating crime but when used in the right context and alongside effective policing, it can have a significant impact," said a spokeswoman. "What's also important is that the system is popular with the public. It helps make people feel safer."
Norris challenges the hype and statistics. "In reality, they can make people feel more secure than they actually are. A lot of police and public confidence in the system is unfounded. Cameras are not very good at stopping violent crime and public disorder. Young men drinking tend not to be deterred by them. " He says its supporters also overlook the high operating costs and evidence that cameras can transfer crime to areas where they aren't operating.
"There are political reputations at stake here and we're asking whether the money could be better spent - on people, for instance?"
Disquiet is also being expressed within officialdom. The Data Protection Registrar has expressed misgivings about the power of CCTV in relation to personal freedoms. The watchers are themselves being watched now.
Not before time, says Norris. "What worries some of us is where is all this surveillance is leading. What is being done with the information being gathered? The City of London police are already trying to persuade traders and commercial premises to use compatible equipment and share technology. It's about the power of systems, the instincts of human nature - once you see a bit, you want to see more. The power of vision is seductive.
"We have to be on our guard. New laws are needed to protect individuals against what's happening in their so called best interest.
"I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I can't help thinking that out there lots of little sisters are turning into Big Brother."
The Maximum Surveillance Society.. The Rise of CCTV As Social Control, is published next month by Berg Publishers of Oxford.