“No shit Sherlock”! Canine DNA and policing public space

Abstract

PurposeThis paper argues that this animal surveillance has the potential for considerable function creep going far outside the scheme's original objectives and acts as a conduit for more problematic surveillance of humans. This results in social sorting of people with subsequent unforeseen consequences leading to discrimination and curtailment of freedoms for both animals and their owners. Ultimately this opens people up to further intrusive targeting by commercial interests and, more alarmingly, scrutiny from law enforcement agencies.Design/methodology/approachAn empirical study examining an initiative involving the collection of canine DNA sources data from publicly available Cabinet, Select Committee and Scrutiny Committee records from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD). It also draws on news media sources, publicity material from the company running the scheme and from this and other local authorities. Methods include analysis of documents, semiotic and discourse analysis.FindingsThis paper highlights the importance of animals to surveillance studies and examines the extent to which animals are a part of the surveillant assemblage in their own right. It also demonstrates how nonhuman animals extend the reach of the surveillant assemblage.Social implicationsThe scheme was called a badge of considerate dog ownership, yet it is one that can be franchised to tie up with diverse income streams being described as advantageous in the age of austerity. In 2017, it was reported that this scheme was to be rolled out in other areas and was moving from being voluntary to being mandatory with the enforcement of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). These have been described as “geographically defined ASBOS” that have come into force under the Anti-social Behaviour and Policing Act (2014); they often work to criminalise activities that were not previously considered illegal.Originality/valueIn the theorising of surveillance, animals have been largely overlooked. Epidemiological studies proliferate, yet the role of animals in many aspects of everyday surveillance has been neglected.

Forensic science and environmental offences: Litter, DNA analysis and surveillance

“…When it comes to litter, Langstone [41] highlights that animals, like humans, have increasingly become the object of routine surveillance. She cites the example of PooPrints, a pioneering dog DNA registration scheme in London, which is designed to identify and hold pet owners accountable for uncollected dog droppings in public spaces [42].…”

“…Irresponsible dog owners may adopt a number of strategies to deal with the dog poo, such as ignoring the fact that the dog is defecating in a public space and is a problem that requires action, or wrapping the poo in a bag but leaving it on the ground or hanging it from a tree [44]. These approaches are likely to be unpopular amongst many users of these spaces, including more responsible dog owners who monitor and wish to protect public spaces from their own dog's poo [41].…”

“…While a resident who inadvertently steps in dog poo or who is confronted by dog poo on their property may see a benefit in measures to address irresponsible dog owners, PooPrints has the effect of placing dog owners themselves under surveillance via their pet dogs. In contrast to using public education and awareness campaigns, it presents dog owners with the threat of a sanction such as an advisory note warning of future enforcement activity or the issuing of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) [41]. Langstone [41] explains that the use of PSPOs "may be disproportionate instances of taking a 'hammer to crack a nut'" (p. 465).…”

“…In contrast to using public education and awareness campaigns, it presents dog owners with the threat of a sanction such as an advisory note warning of future enforcement activity or the issuing of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) [41]. Langstone [41] explains that the use of PSPOs "may be disproportionate instances of taking a 'hammer to crack a nut'" (p. 465). To put this into context, we know that although surveillance powers increased post 9/11, they were never intended to be used for misdemeanours.…”