UK policing “shot through” with Chinese surveillance technology

The survey, which was orchestrated in the second half of last year, asked all 43 police force areas in England and Wales – as well as the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence, and the National Crime Agency – about their use and governance of public surveillance camera systems (including on drones and helicopters, body-worn video and Automatic Number Plate Recognition) – and any other relevant systems. In all, 39 responses were received out of a possible total of 47.

There are several key findings. At least 18 respondents state that their external camera systems use equipment about which there have been security or ethical concerns. At least 24 respondents say that their internal camera systems use equipment about which there have been security or ethical concerns.

Further, at least 11 respondents report that their Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems use equipment about which there have been security or ethical concerns.

23 of the 31 respondents who said they operate cameras on drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (variously with video, audio and thermal imaging and/or night vision capability) are aware of security or ethical concerns about the manufacturer of their drones.

Voicing concern

Fraser Sampson, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, observed: “It’s abundantly clear from this detailed analysis of the survey results that the police estate in the UK is shot through with Chinese surveillance cameras. It’s also perfectly clear that the police forces deploying this equipment are generally aware that there are security and ethical concerns about the companies supplying the kit that’s being used.”

Sampson continued: “There has been much in the news in recent times about how concerned we should be about Chinese spy balloons 60,000 feet up in the sky. I don’t understand why we are not at least as concerned about the Chinese cameras six feet above our heads in the street and elsewhere.”

Further, Sampson noted: “Clearly, it’s sometimes vital that the police must be able to use intrusive surveillance technology in public places. If police forces want the public to trust them to do so, however, they must be able to persuade us all not only that they are working with system partners and providers that can be trusted, but also that they will use the technology available to them lawfully, responsibly and according to a set of clear and agreed principles.”

In conclusion, Sampson explained: “Parliament has already acted to curtail the use of equipment made by several Chinese manufacturers from some areas of public life where security is key. In tandem with others, I have been saying for some time that we should, both for security and ethical reasons, really be asking ourselves whether it’s ever appropriate for public bodies to use equipment made by companies with such serious questions hanging over them.”

Survey detail

The Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner sent the survey to the chief officers of the 47 policing bodies in June last year. The document followed the format of earlier surveys conducted by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner in 2017 and 2019.

The response rates for previous surveys had been 100%, but the rate for the 2022 survey fell to 91% (as stated, there were 39 out of a possible 47 replies) despite responses being accepted more than three months after the initial deadline. The survey report notes that the 2022 return was “disappointing [with] some noticeable absences in returns this time, including some of the larger police forces.”

A list of those bodies that did respond is included in an appendix at the end of the report. The eight bodies which did not complete the survey were the City of London Police, Gloucestershire Police, Greater Manchester Police, Gwent Police, Merseyside Police, the National Crime Agency, South Yorkshire Police and the Thames Valley Police.

An initial analysis of the survey was published in November last year.