Opinion: Online surveillance - specific issues for gay and lesbian people

Post your comment

When commenting, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. Your email address, if supplied, will not be published or passed on to anyone outside of LGF Online but may be used to respond to you if required – see our Privacy Policy for more details.

• The gay village is a land of profit making venues selling a wide variety of legalised narcotic substances such as alcohol and herbal stimulants, you can also buy not-so legal substances if you know where to look or who to ask.
  
  Everyone knows the biggest problem in the village is the abuse of the most commonly available substance - alcohol. Sex is available to anyone who wants it on tap be it at a straight massage parlour or strip club, a gay sauna, the back-room of a club on one of our many fetish nights or off a prostitute on Minshall Street or from a rent boy hanging about in a car park. What's the difference?
  
  In terms of begging and the discouragement given to street homeless people handed down by Manchester City Council and the Police to their presence in the area it feels very much like social-cleansing in action. We don't want these sex workers and druggies them lingering around on Canal Street collecting our pink pounds from the hen nights and the tourists because that takes away valuable money that could be far better spent on providing free condoms for those local folk who do have homes and who contribute significant sums of money to the 'legal drug' economy in our clubs and bars. Some people come into the village for Smirnoff, some come here for Smack. What's the difference?
  
  Isn't it obvious to the power that be that the drug dealers, the beggars and the sex workers the residents complain about are symptomatic of the legalised and social accepted prevalence of the presence the same type of activities that Canal Street's very economy thrives on in the first place? Choosers cannot be beggars!
  
  I notice Gary mentioned it was only 15 years ago the police regularly raided gay clubs. From a recent experience one evening in a well known 'mens bar' pretty much the same thing happened to the amazement of the clientèle and staff in the venue at the time, one of those customers was myself. They apparently came in to 'check the toilets for illegal activity'. Thankfully the Village Neighbourhood Policing Team were not involved in this assault on our civil liberties - in fact one of the named village bobbies you no doubt know Marc was in the venue when it happened! When questioned by the staff he genuinely seemed to have no prior knowledge of this 'raid', how odd! Having heard homophobic comments made about them by their colleagues working in the gay village during the Easter Bank Holiday weekend when their caravan thing was parked up on Sackville Street. I genuinely feel sorry for the few out, LGBT identified police officers working in Manchester who have my respect.
  
  I believe this rather recent police activity also contributed towards the closure of another venue of the same type of clientèle on the same street. It continues down in Birmingham - just ask anyone who frequents the Fountain or Bolt/Boots bar and the others which have been 'shut down' for people have sex in private in public. It is peculiar and worrying. Combine the multiple threats of a future Conservative government, BNP MEP's now having a say over our Human Rights in Europe, and the very real prospect of the BNP being able to directly influence Greater Manchester Police (not to mention the BNP members found to be working in the force recently) I believe Mr Blair when he said 'things could only get better' but I don't feel much has changed, and things could only get worse.
  
  Institutional discrimination aimed at minorities of all varieties as I've described above will always exist in a society that champions 'social justice' but at the same time thrives on social inequality.

  Posted by David Henry, 25/06/2009 9:39pm (1 year ago)
  

• David I agree and disagree with you. While CCTV hasn't been proven to aid crime prevention in some areas and has been in others by a small percentage according to the Campbell Collaboration review I personally am convinced that someone wishing to commit a crime is looking for two things - an easy win and not to get caught either at the time or after the fact. CCTV complicates the ability to carry out a crime in that way and so acts as a deterrent.
  
  You speak from personal experience about being assaulted and if CCTV isn't enough of a deterrent to that happening then it will happen anyway. The key is for the response to be quick and the person monitoring CCTV feeds getting people to you as soon as possible. If you choose not to report a hate crime you are free to do so. I know from experience that it is a laborious process sometimes and definitely stressful but in my opinion it needs to be done. In my case it didn't prove it to be homophobic so I'm not sure where you got that from, it just proved what the guy was saying was a lie in that he said he wasn't there. What annoyed me was that after 9 months of waiting I had to get up on the stand and talk about the incident like it was yesterday, remembering key facts which I'd pretty much tried to push to the back of my mind but that is the court system not the police.
  
  Feel free to question the ruling on not drinking anywhere in Manchester city to which Canal Street has an exemption. In my experience drinking alcohol in city centres is illegal and I don't think it is part of any subversive CCTV related plot. Allowing drinking in the park in my opinion would despoil the gardens and make it attract even more problems.
  
  I can't comment on your outreach work as I personally do not know much about it. If you have serious issues with the police you really need to report these so they can be addressed. There is information on the GMP website http://gmp.police.uk/ to do that.
  Alleging that the police abuse their powers is a serious accusation. I personally know that the Village Neighbourhood Policing Team do their best to respond to complaints continually received from residents and visitors to the village about beggars, drug dealers and street workers in the area and act to end illegal activities in the village. But they are only one shift and can't be around all of the time.
  
  Having said all of that, the Police do get it wrong sometimes (I know it all too well and I'll happily tell you about it if I see you out and about!) and it is up to us to challenge and report when these incidents happen - I have to point out the excellent article on the G7UK website about the naked cyclists http://www.g7uk.com/photo-video-blog/20090614-manchester-police-harrass-world-naked-bike-riders.shtml as how the Police can mess up big time.

  Posted by Marc, 25/06/2009 11:01am (1 year ago)
  

• The surveillance state only exists to protect the privileged from the ever-increasing wrath of the poor. CCTV may assist the criminal justice system by putting more people in jail, but please tell me how it's existence can save lives? We are told we are being monitored for the purpose of 'Crime Prevention' yet the only credible examples of how CCTV acts in a preventative way is to prosecute the offenders at a later date - when the crime has already taken place.
  
  Speaking from personal experience CCTV in the gay village is being abused and used again and again for the wrong purpose. The CCTV system and the neighbourhood police team have so far not prevented myself or my friends being assaulted on Canal Street. Even if we were brave enough to report and pursue the offenders all it takes is for them to obscure their faces or the footage to go missing (as it so frequently does!) or be too poor quality to be of any use or hold up in court. I also fail to understand how the crime could be proven to be 'homophobic' thanks to additional photographic evidence. CCTV creates a culture of never-ending fear and perpetuates the cycle of victimisation and discrimination many of us including the LGF are working so hard to over-turn.
  
  Isn't it time people started to question why alcohol has been banned in Sackville Park? - where there are plenty of bins, benches and lots of grass to sit on, let alone all the taxpayers money that goes in to keeping the place looking tidy? Perhaps it would be better if everyone bought their drinks from the bars on canal street and sat quietly with their heads down at the chairs and tables provided? If you don't fancy the cameras zooming in on any other plans you may have and risk getting a public order offence or being asked to leave the area then you are wise to be good little boys and girls and do as the council tell you.
  
  I am currently doing a lot of outreach work with some of the most vulnerable, disenfranchised people in Manchester, many of them frequent the gay village and can be found hanging around in Sackville Park. They are constantly targeted by the police and the council using 'terror laws' designed apparently for other purposes. But these people are not terrorists, they are no more a threat to society than anyone else, most of them are young, working class, homeless or unemployed.
  
  Everyday they experience the full extent of Manchester's CCTV system and it's custodians including the so called 'village community police team' exploiting these powers to intimidate and dehumanise them for the sake of keeping up appearances in the city centre.

  Posted by David Henry, 24/06/2009 3:58pm (1 year ago)
  

• I disagree with the statement that CCTV has had "zero" impact on crime. My last home was a council flat that was frequently targeted by young lads vandalising the property and breaking into cars. After installation of a CCTV camera, it never happened again. I'm also kind of comforted by seeing cameras if I'm walking home slightly the worse for wear late at night (not that that happens as much as it used to!), so I can quite clearly see the benefits.
  
  What I don't like though is the whole "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" mentality (to quote a favourite band of mine). There's no denying we are moving into a more authoritarian age, fuelled by paranoia and fear, and for me this is where civil liberties are in real danger. It's healthy to have a level of scepticism when it comes to surveillance and monitoring and not to take every new 'security measure' without questioning the need for it.
  
  Finally is ID theft really such a big issue? I don't know, or know of, anyone who has had their identity stolen. Credit card details maybe. Bank statements possibly. But an entire identity? I'm (controversially it would seem) sceptical, but willing to be proven wrong, as I'm sure if it did ever happen to me I'd be more than a bit upset!

  Posted by Grahame Robertson, 24/06/2009 2:45pm (1 year ago)
  

• Thanks for linking, that's always good.
  
  I certainly hope that things will never go backwards but I feel that the progress in recent years has been a mere blink of an eye in historical terms. I do have faith in the basic decency of the people of this country. On the otherhand with the really dire economic situation for years to come now, the US losing power, climate change and all kinds of other things ahead none of us can be sure of the future.
  
  So we must never become complacent and take what we have for granted.
  
  I enjoyed the discussion, thanks for your replies.

  Posted by Gary, 24/06/2009 12:24pm (1 year ago)
  

• I've lived in Manchester for 6 years but I am from the most heavily CCTV'd town in the country - Middlesbrough - and it really does have no bearing on my personal life. It is not something that bothers me and I feel a bit more safe knowing that the system is there and visible.
  
  We live in a Manchester that has a gay village with a neighbourhood police team populated with lesbian, gay and straight people who wanted to be a part of, and police, the area. New PCs for the city centre get some training from the Community Beat PC Sam Tennant which features the bible bashing Chief Constable and shows how far the force has come. The Police aren't perfect - your article on the naked bikers is a good example and I've plugged it on Reddit if you don't mind - but on the whole we have a good team in Manchester.
  
  Nick Griffin won't come to power because people like me and you and (most of) the other people reading this will not let that happen. I am confident of this. I will have nothing to hide now or 25 years from now. I am also confident of this. I'm not giving up my civil liberties, I am instead being active in voicing my opinion and voting for the issues that affect me.
  
  I'm really sorry but the use of ANPR and whistle-blowing in the scenario you have depicted sounds like something right out of 24! Most organisations and companies have to respect the rights of their employees and 'whistle-blowers' are normally protected. Even the LGF has a policy to protect any staff member and "...provide reassurance for those acting in good faith that they will be protected from possible reprisals or victimisation" for being a 'whistle-blower'. The policy is quite extensive and is reassuring to read if I'm honest.
  
  With regards to the very credible worry about information not coming out if people are worried about reprisals I have found that information always finds a way of getting out.
  
  I hope this answers a lot of your questions and points and thank you again for contributing. It's really made me sit and think.

  Posted by Marc, 24/06/2009 12:08pm (1 year ago)
  

• I've lived in Manchester for 27 years. It is only 15 years ago that Police were raiding gay clubs wearing rubber gloves and we had a bible-bashing chief constable who thought that homosexuals were swirling around in a 'cesspool' of our own making. 25 years ago we had a very repressive government and I remember a moment when I wondered which way things were going to go: more repressive or more open.
  
  Think about who may be using these powers in the future. It could be Prime Minister Nick Griffin in 2025. Unlikely? Well Berlin had a very vibrant gay scene in the 1920's, with dozens of gay magazines and clubs and I believe that some regions were even considering civil partnerships. Then Adolf Hilter came to power and within 15 years those people were in death camps.
  
  You may have nothing to hide right now, but who knows 25 years from now? People died to get us the civil liberties and freedom that we have. Don't be too ready to give them up!
  
  As for the numberplate recognition in real time... Imagine a journalist arranges to meet a whistle-blower with some information to share, the authorities can follow his/her vehicle from home to destination and probably monitor the meeting on camera too. How many people will come forward with crucial information if that is liable to happen?

  Posted by Gary, 24/06/2009 11:18am (1 year ago)
  

• Of course I should have clarified that these were images of me taken by someone else at an event in London and gawd knows where they got them from but gaydar were brilliant in responding to me and sorting the issue out.
  
  There will be legal issues involved in forcing someone to take your own image down from somewhere you haven't permitted them to be. The LGF has even pulled imagery after the fact that someone consented to their image being used, at expense to the LGF as material had been produced using the image which had to be recycled. Even though a permission was given and release forms signed its considerate to take this kind of action.
  
  I can't, and we can't as an organisation comment on Google policy so you'd have to ask them but everyone is free to have an opinion. Andrew expressed his above and I have continued to express mine.
  
  With regards to CCTV, it worked for me in my case so I'm a happy customer. I can find no statistics on the number of cases solved with a cursory search of the web so I think it is unfair to say it is small without any evidence. It worked in my case so it is worth every penny in my opinion.
  
  ANPR is a separate perceived threat in who is tasked to look after the systems and the data gathered but as its own issue it doesn't bother me in the slightest - I don't own a car. Doubtless there will be a load of regulations for the data which will wrap it up but there will always be people that insist it will be used for clandestine purposes. I am not one of them.

  Posted by Marc, 24/06/2009 10:37am (1 year ago)
  

• Gary,
  
  I have to completely disagree with you in regard to CCTV if you are doing nothing wrong then why would you have a problem with it. Do you really believe that we live in an Orwellian world where our every step is being watched by some hidden person, if so I think you are completely misguided and possibly a Daily Mail believer.
  
  CCTV does not infringe on our liberties, it does not stop us going where we want to go when we want to. It is a very useful tool in crime solving including missing people etc.
  
  You seem to be quite happy for people to take pictures in public but not for the government to take pictures in public, I fail to see the difference (perhaps the photographers could be government agents of your Orwellian world?). Oh and where do you stand on people videoing off their mobile phones surely that's the same as CCTV?
  
  I seem to have sidetracked from my point some what but I think you get my opinion.

  Posted by Mark, 24/06/2009 10:28am (1 year ago)
  

• The article goes from talking about Google Street View, in other words images that have been taken by someone else, to a discussion about being unable to have your image taken down if you don't know someone else 'has it'.
  
  If you are photographed in a public place there isn't much you can do to stop those images being published, unless they show something that damages your reputation, which the sex shop example might do.
  
  Someone using images that you took yourself, and which are therefore your copyright, is a completely different matter. In that case you can very definitely make a complaint about copyright infringement or someone impersonating you and probably have them taken down.
  
  As for CCTV, the question is whether the small number of cases that are solved justify us having a surveillance society. I don't think they do. We are giving up too much. Numberplate recognition is the next thing and very soon the authorities will be able to do it in real time. Think about that for a minute! What will be the consequences for journalists, politicians, activists and many other people who do things that the authorities could be interested in?
  
  So I'm concerned that the article is so uncritical about CCTV.

  Posted by Gary, 24/06/2009 10:01am (1 year ago)