(LD):...The issues are
difficult, but the point was not to put them in the “too
difficult” tray. I believe that the report answers the not
unexpected concerns that we must not stifle innovation, that each
police force should be free to take its own decision and
that Police and Crime
Commissioners must ensure compliance with human
rights.
We heard a lot about the independence of Police
and Crime Commissioners and that
PCCs and chiefs ensure compliance with human
rights. I heard that as overdefensive. Of course each force
should pick products to suit its local needs; there are 43 forces
applying the same law. By analogy, the BSI kitemark is in common
use for many products in other sectors—in other words,
certification. The police could have a choice among certified
products. That would not preclude them picking products to suit
their own local priorities. Operationally, this would not mean
that the police do not have to assess both the necessity and
proportionality of each deployment...
(Con):...It is very
easy to be seduced by the technologies themselves, but I would
like to pull focus to questions of transparency, governance and
accountability. We are told that much accountability within the
system now rests with Police and Crime
Commissioners My own dealings with such a
commissioner give me no reassurance at all—quite the opposite, in
fact. I do not believe that PCCs can provide
adequate or even meaningful accountability, especially where
fast-moving technology is concerned. They lack the necessary
expertise and, looking at some of the turnouts in
PCC elections, they lack the authority too....
To read the whole debate, OPEN HERE
