Five councils have installed or are considering using controversial listening devices in CCTV systems to detect sounds such as screams and noisy vehicles in public streets – despite growing privacy concerns.
Data obtained by The i Paper shows local authorities, including two affluent London boroughs, have deployed so-called “sound detectors” to monitor public spaces and alert CCTV control rooms to potential criminal or anti-social behaviour.
The next-generation technology, which is trained on AI audio software to pick up noises from gunshots to graffiti spray paint cans, is in use in the Norfolk seaside town of Great Yarmouth, a public building in Winchester, and on the streets of Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea.
The council in Southend-on-Sea in Essex said it has also been considering use of the equipment to tackle anti-social behaviour.
Eavesdropping concerns
The spread of acoustic cameras is taking place in the face of mounting concern about the monitoring of public spaces by authorities, in this case over whether or not conversations or other social interactions can be overheard.
Campaigners have already expressed alarm at a decision by ministers to press ahead with the widespread deployment by police forces of live facial recognition cameras used for the identification and arrest of suspects, despite evidence that the technology exhibits racial bias.
It was revealed this week that Metropolitan Police officers are to start scanning faces of people on the street to confirm identities during police stops.
Backers of the sound detection technology insist it can serve as a powerful tool to detect or prevent crime, and improve 999 response times. The acoustic cameras, which can cost as little as £700, constantly monitor their surroundings and are programmed to pick up a spectrum of sounds from human shouts to gunshots.
Manufacturers say the resulting system is a potent addition to conventional CCTV networks as it detects and records sounds which can then be collected and assessed by control room operators. While some systems collect only a few seconds of audio, others have the capability to record for an extended period.
Several of the systems identified in freedom of information data, including the acoustic cameras deployed in Kensington and Chelsea, are being used to identify and fine the drivers of vehicles which break decibel limits.
Others have been installed in specific neighbourhoods to monitor anti-social behaviour such as public drinking, drug dealing and loud music.
Sound recording technology is also increasingly being deployed in other scenarios, including the installation of “panic buttons” in licensed taxis.
‘Over-reliance’ on technology
But privacy experts warn of a growing over-reliance on technology to tackle social ills and called on councils to be more transparent about where and how they are using sound detectors in public spaces.
Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: “Ever more surveillance cannot become the solution councils reach for to tackle every challenge. We all have a right to go about our lives without being secretly listened in on by microphones hidden in CCTV cameras or on lampposts.
“The lack of clarity from councils on why they are using sound monitoring tech makes the intrusion even more worrying as this kind of surveillance is a serious risk to everyone’s privacy, monitoring vehicle decibel levels is one thing but if these tools can pick up people’s conversations that should alarm us all.”
Public authorities including councils and police forces are required by watchdogs to operate under tight controls when it comes to activities such as collecting data and evidence from public spaces.
The Information Commissioner’s Office warns in its guidance to CCTV operators that any eavesdropping on conversations between members of the public would be regarded as “highly intrusive and unlikely to be justifiable in most circumstances”.
How tech is being used
The FOI data collected by The i Paper showed that Westminster council has had an acoustic camera in the Maida Hill area of north London since mid-2024 to “support evidence gathering around anti-social behaviour”. The neighbourhood has previously been the subject of an injunction by the local authority to crack down on nuisance issues including excessive noise and public urination.
In Great Yarmouth, a “noise camera” has been installed adjacent to a seafront car park as part of an effort to crack down on loud music and engine noise from drivers who gather in the neighbourhood.
Neither local authority responded to a request from The i Paper to detail whether or not the cameras constantly record sound and what measures are in place to meet privacy requirements.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea said its nine acoustic cameras were used for traffic noise enforcement, while Westminster said it also had two cameras for the same purpose.
Southend-on-Sea City Council said its officers “have been looking into [acoustic cameras] as a potential means of dealing with anti-social behaviour”, but added that the project “has not been implemented”.
Hampshire County Council said it did not use sound-detection technology in any of the public spaces it is responsible for but said it is in the process of installing devices with the capability to monitor sound as part of an upgrade of the CCTV system at its headquarters in Winchester.
Police refusal to disclose whether sound detectors in use
The FOI request showed that many public bodies, including police forces, are reluctant to discuss whether or not they are using sound-detectors to monitor Britain’s town and cities.
Five local authorities, including the Greater London Authority headed by Mayor Sadiq Khan, refused to disclose if they have trialed or deployed the technology.
Each of the 15 police forces which responded to the data request also declined to confirm or deny whether they use sound detection kit.
All of the organisations said they were retaining the information on the grounds that divulging it would reveal details of law enforcement or public protection capabilities which could be of use to criminals, including terrorists.
Your next read
square ANDREW MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSORAndrew’s lonely life in exile playing Call of Duty – and no sign of Beatrice and Eugenie
square ARMED FORCESUK shoots down Iranian missile – as British troops come within 200m of attack
square ROYAL FAMILY Big ReadMassages, golf and five-star hotels: Inside Andrew’s taxpayer-funded trade trips
square IRAN radio_button_checked LIVEThree US soldiers killed in Iran strikes — French base in Abu Dhabi hit
An identical FOI response provided by the police forces said: “Disclosing police surveillance capabilities would provide people committing crime or those with the criminal intent with information that would increase the effectiveness of their criminality and assist them in evading detection.”
Late last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the umbrella body for police forces, told The i Paper that it was “not aware” of any UK forces adopting sound-alert technology in police-operated CCTV systems.
Hence then, the article about the areas where hidden devices are set to listen into your daily life was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The areas where hidden devices are set to listen into your daily life )
Also on site :