Alarm Over Chinese CCTV Guarding Magna Carta Site

Published: 31 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Concerns have been raised over the use of Chinese-made surveillance cameras protecting one of Britain’s most treasured democratic symbols, the Magna Carta, prompting renewed debate about ethics, security, and historical responsibility. Campaigners say the presence of this technology at such a landmark raises serious moral and geopolitical questions that extend far beyond routine security arrangements.

The Magna Carta, sealed by King John in 1215, is widely regarded as a foundation stone of modern democracy and human rights. One of the four surviving original copies is housed at Salisbury Cathedral, where it is displayed under strict security conditions. However, it has emerged that some of the cameras guarding the historic document are supplied by Dahua Technology, a Chinese surveillance company facing allegations over its role in human rights abuses.

The issue came to light through letters sent by international advocacy groups to Salisbury Cathedral and other European heritage authorities. These letters argue that the use of Dahua cameras contradicts the values represented by the Magna Carta itself. Campaigners say it is deeply troubling that technology allegedly linked to repression is being used to safeguard a symbol of freedom and justice.

Dahua Technology is based in Hangzhou, China, and is one of the world’s largest producers of surveillance equipment. The company has previously faced criticism for allegedly supplying technology used in China’s Xinjiang region. Human rights organisations claim that such systems have supported mass surveillance of the Uyghur population, contributing to what some groups describe as crimes against humanity.

The World Uyghur Congress, an international organisation representing Uyghurs living in exile, has been at the forefront of the campaign. In a letter addressed to Salisbury Cathedral’s head of security, the organisation urged the removal of Dahua equipment. It argued that the company’s technology has been implicated in systems designed to identify and monitor Uyghurs through facial recognition.

The organisation said the situation was particularly painful, given the Magna Carta’s global significance. According to the group, using technology linked to repression to protect a document symbolising liberty sends a deeply conflicting message. The letter stressed that safeguarding history should not come at the cost of ethical compromise.

Salisbury Cathedral has responded cautiously to the concerns. A spokesperson said the cathedral does not comment publicly on security matters but confirmed that its systems and suppliers are regularly reviewed with the help of external advisers. The cathedral also stated that it had not received the original email, although evidence suggests it was sent in December.

The surveillance system was reportedly installed by a UK-based firm, ARC Fire Safety & Security, acting as an intermediary supplier. The company has not publicly commented on the issue. This has added another layer of complexity, raising questions about procurement processes and due diligence in the heritage sector.

Similar concerns have been raised beyond the United Kingdom. The World Uyghur Congress has also written to Greek authorities responsible for the Parthenon, another globally recognised symbol of democratic heritage. That site reportedly uses cameras produced by Hikvision, another Chinese surveillance giant facing comparable allegations.

Hikvision and Dahua have both been subject to restrictions in several countries. In the UK, their equipment has been removed from what authorities describe as sensitive government sites. Officials previously cited fears that the systems could be remotely accessed, potentially allowing foreign interference or espionage.

The controversy has gained further momentum due to security concerns linked to the war in Ukraine. A Ukrainian organisation, Don’t Fund Russian Army, has highlighted cases where surveillance cameras manufactured by Chinese firms were allegedly exploited by Russian forces during the invasion.

According to the group, vulnerabilities in certain camera systems allowed hackers to access live footage. In some cases, this footage reportedly appeared online during missile strikes. Campaigners argue that such material may have been used to assess the effectiveness of attacks and intimidate civilians.

Oleksii Kuprienko, a representative of the Ukrainian organisation, said that footage from compromised cameras could be used for reconnaissance. He described incidents in which surveillance feeds appeared to show Ukrainian defence positions shortly before they were targeted. He warned that this posed serious risks to both military operations and civilian safety.

One particularly concerning case occurred in early 2024, when footage believed to originate from a Hikvision camera showed the operation of a Ukrainian air defence system. Shortly after the footage circulated online, the location was reportedly struck. Ukrainian officials believe this was not a coincidence.

Grigory Mamka, a Ukrainian member of parliament who sits on a committee overseeing law enforcement, confirmed that authorities had begun removing Dahua and Hikvision cameras. He said security services had discovered that entrance codes were hacked and connections were made to equipment installed by the two companies.

Mamka stated that investigations in 2024 revealed the cameras had been accessed by hostile forces, allegedly linked to the Russian military. He said this demonstrated the real-world risks posed by insecure surveillance technology, particularly during times of conflict.

Footage of missile strikes, apparently captured through compromised CCTV systems, has also appeared on video-sharing platforms. Ukrainian campaigners argue this forms part of a broader psychological warfare strategy, aimed at spreading fear and demonstrating military power.

Neither Dahua nor Hikvision has publicly responded to the latest allegations. Requests for comment from both companies have gone unanswered. This silence has done little to reassure critics, who say transparency is essential given the seriousness of the claims.

The debate raises broader questions about how democratic societies protect their cultural heritage in an increasingly interconnected world. Historic sites require modern security, yet the choice of technology now carries ethical, political, and security implications that were unthinkable decades ago.

Experts say institutions must balance cost, effectiveness, and values when selecting security systems. For campaigners, the issue is clear. They argue that symbols of democracy should not be guarded by technology associated with repression or alleged abuse.

As global tensions continue and concerns over digital security grow, the controversy surrounding the Magna Carta cameras may prompt wider reassessment across Europe. For many observers, the situation serves as a reminder that even the protection of ancient freedoms is now shaped by modern geopolitical realities.