ICAC’s use of taxpayer-funded cameras to allegedly monitor wife in home dismissed by Inspector
EXCLUSIVE: Anti-corruption commissioner Michael Riches allegedly used taxpayer-funded cameras instal
7 Comments
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
ICAC claims not to have enough money to investigate matters. That may be because it appears that they spend all their budget money spying themselves
All people in high risk jobs have CCTV installed in and around their homes, CHIEF MINISTER, POLICE COMMISSIONER and no doubt the ICAC COMMISSIONER etc. Ms Riches assertions that it was placed to spy on her in particular would be misguided. Independent I support you, clearly I can comment here but you really are stretching things alluding to misuse of money and property.
Madame you are correct but it does not matter how or where the CCTV cameras are. The only thing that matters is what you use the captured footage for. If your correct that the Chief Minister, Police and ICAC Commissioners have CCTV cameras in their houses, then they may capture some footage that is not in the public interest. Who controls and has access to the footage? I would hate to live in a house that is under constant surveillance by people i don’t know. Yes, i would feel spied on and if Ms Riches did not give her permission to be under constant surveillance then she has a case. Ms Riches is not a Commissioner or even a public servant.
“All people in high risk jobs have CCTV installed in and around their homes, CHIEF MINISTER, POLICE COMMISSIONER and no doubt the ICAC COMMISSIONER etc.”
This claim should be an easy one to check.
Questions:
Who pays for these? How much do they cost every year?
How and where is the footage stored? Is it secure?
Would you trust NT Government to secure this from State sponsored hacking groups overseas?
Who has access to it? When has it been accessed? How many times? For what purposes?
What are the data retention policies around this kind of material?
Is this the same in every State and Territory in Australia?
Can Riches or any other Commissioner have the cameras removed if they want? (Asking him would be pointless if not).
If they could, who would they ask? Who has the final say in a decision like that?
Are these NT Government cameras all over the house? In the bedroom? In the kitchen?
What about footage of people’s kids? Or other people’s kids? Are their faces blurred out?
Do people coming into the house automatically give their consent to be filmed?
Do they know they are being filmed? Are there signs up anywhere alerting people to the fact they are being constantly filmed (by NT Government)?
“The NT Independent has confirmed the cameras were installed by the NT Government”
“Mr Riches is in charge of investigating corruption and other serious misconduct involving the Territory’s top decision-makers and public servants.”
So the NT ICAC Commissioner, who is responsible for investigating corruption in NT Government and their public servants amongst other things, is having his and his family’s and all their friends and acquaintances’ movements and conversations recorded and stored and presumably accessed by the same NT Government and their public servants he is investigating?
Is this really common practice? Does anybody else see this as a massive conflict of interest?
““If I did leave the house, he would ask me where I was going,” she said. “He would use the cameras to see whether I had completed tasks such as dog walking.”
That looks like coercive control to me.
Bruce McLintock was right about one thing, his job is not to make a finding on whether there was or wasn’t DV or other related offences happening.
This is a Police matter and I encourage Ms Riches to ask the Police to investigate although I don’t know if NT Police would be the right body to do this in the current climate (read all about them in this wonderful online publication).
Maybe the AFP could get involved as an independent Police force?
NT ICAC, the gift that keeps on giving.
The Government has a duty of care to those in Government and Public Service who may be at risk by virtue of the position they hold. I’m sure all security measures taken to ensure their safety are lawful, CCTV may or may not be subject to The Surveillance Devices Act NT. I don’t know whether the CCTV would also have voice recordings? It may not be necessary. As for bedrooms, let’s use some common sense. Do people with doorbell security and other forms of Domestic CCTV security need to advise everyone who enters their homes or perimeters of their homes that they have CCTV. Children will be recorded playing in the Street by Joe Average’s home CCTV. It’s the world we live in.
Getting back to the subject of those in positions who may be subject to threats and danger, the CCTV is most likely monitored by those people themselves or their personal assistances etc. Ms Riches said Mr Riches offered her access on her phone, which she declined. I assume Mrs Riches knew when her then husband was appointed ICAC Commissioner that he may not be popular, and they would have been briefed on security measures required.
Estimates questions.
Having worked as a security technician I understand placement of CCTV and security systems. The priority for CCTV is to cover points of entry and perimeter of premises. The security system can cover internal areas and is less intrusive. A duress alarm can be used to activate camera recording for otherwise dormant cameras but live streaming is always running. The trigger zones for motion sense recordings can be set to minimise recordings in areas outside of property boundaries.