“CCTV plays an important role in combating crime but that has to be balanced with privacy concerns and used within common sense limits.”

So a few more dead drivers, a lot more savage attacks, more false accusations, more rapist drivers, is all a price worth paying?

Brakes put on city taxi CCTV scheme



A CONTROVERSIAL scheme to put CCTV in all of Oxford’s taxis has been put on hold over privacy fears.

Yesterday was the start date for a programme of putting CCTV to record images and audio in the city’s taxis by 2015.

But Oxford City Council has put it on hold while the Information Commissioner’s Office investigates if recording people’s conversations is a breach of privacy.

Oxford West and Abingdon MP Nicola Blackwood has also told the council she is unhappy with the scheme.

Ms Blackwood, Conservative MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, has also written to the Information Commissioner’s Office seeking an update on that investigation.

Executive member for city development Colin Cook said: “I’m in favour of this scheme but we are waiting for a response from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

“We think the scheme complies with the ICO’s code of practice.”

Council spokesman Louisa Dean added: “We have had an inquiry from the Information Commissioner who wishes to better understand the scheme. We are happy to assist in those enquiries.”

Ms Blackwood said: “It does seem the city council has crossed the line.

“It is an invasion of privacy and undermining of civil liberties that neither passengers nor taxi drivers themselves have welcomed.

“The ICO stated to me that recording conversations between passengers is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified.

“CCTV plays an important role in combating crime but that has to be balanced with privacy concerns and used within common sense limits.”

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/962564 ... me/?ref=nt

Why don't the Council do a little footwork and go out there and see the benefits of in car CCTV in other cities across the UK instead of listening the the bulbs who drive cabs in Oxford?

They've obvioulsy got something to hide if they don't want CCTV in their Taxis.

The problem is them making it mandatory - that aside - with what the government are currently proposing in respect of the internet - this is the least of our problems;

Backlash grows over GCHQ 'snooping'

(UKPA) – 6 hours ago

David Cameron is facing a growing backbench backlash over plans for a major expansion of the Government's powers to monitor the email exchanges and website visits of every person in the UK.

Under legislation expected in next month's Queen's Speech, internet companies will be instructed to install hardware enabling GCHQ - the Government's electronic "listening" agency - to examine "on demand" any phone call made, text message and email sent, and website accessed, in "real time" without a warrant.

A previous attempt to introduce a similar law was abandoned by the former Labour government in 2006 in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as well as civil liberties groups. Senior MPs from both coalition parties lined up to condemn the move by ministers to revive the plan.

The Home Office argued that the measure was "vital" to combat terrorism and organised crime and stressed a warrant would be needed in order to access the content of the communications they were monitoring.

However that did little to allay the concerns of critics who said the authorities would still be able to trace who people were in contact with and how often and for how long they were communicating.

"It is not focusing on terrorists or on criminals. It is absolutely everybody. Historically governments have been kept out of our private lives," said Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis.

"Our freedom and privacy has been protected by using the courts by saying 'If you want to intercept, if you want to look at something, fine, if it is a terrorist or a criminal go and ask a magistrate and you'll get your approval'. You shouldn't go beyond that in a decent, civilised society but that is what is being proposed.

"They don't need this law to protect us. This is an unnecessary extension of the ability of the state to snoop on ordinary innocent people in vast numbers. Frankly, they shouldn't have that power."

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti warned that it would undermine the coalition's commitment to human rights if it went ahead with the plan.

"There is an element of whoever you vote for the empire strikes back," she said. "This is more ambitious than anything that has been done before. The coalition bound itself together in the language of civil liberties. Do they still mean it?"

CC

Don't the Council have a right to protect the travelling public and the drivers? They have CCTV on buses, in Council offices, on the streets, in pubs and clubs.

Without Permanant Voice Recording much of CCTV's footage is pointless.

So what do the ones that are already fitted to cabs across the UK record

I am still in discussion with Ayr, who's official line in that Voice Recording can only be activated by a Panic Button.