CCTV Surveillance Camera - Ever Watchful

Everywhere we look it seems cctv cameras are springing up – almost like weeds – and at considerable expense.

CCTV Surveillance has almost become the watchword for personal security.

The question of – Do these cctv cameras make us safer or not – must be asked.

Consider the comments regarding the recent assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

(CNN) — On January 19, a team of at least 15 people assassinated Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Dubai police released video footage of 11 of them. Although it was obviously a very professional operation, the 27 minutes of video is fascinating in its banality.

Comment on this by Bruce Schneier who is a security technologist and author of “Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.”

Team members walk through the airport, check into and out of hotels, get into and out of taxis. They make no effort to hide themselves from the cameras, sometimes seeming to stare directly into them. They obviously don’t care that they’re being recorded, and — in fact — the cameras didn’t prevent the assassination, nor as far as we know have they helped as yet in identifying the killers.

But does cctv surveillance reduce crime?

Pervasive security cameras don’t substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data are clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

Although it’s comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, the truth is very different, for a variety of reasons: technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals. No one looks at most CCTV Surveillance footage until well after a crime is committed.

And when the police do look at the recordings, it’s very common for them to be unable to identify suspects. Criminals don’t often stare helpfully at the lens and — unlike the Dubai assassins — tend to wear sunglasses and hats. Cameras break far too often.

Video: New suspects in Dubai murder
RELATED TOPICS

* Crime
* Dubai
* Law Enforcement

Even when they afford quick identification — think of the footage of the September 11 terrorists going through airport security or the July 7 London transport bombers just before the bombs exploded — police are often able to identify those suspects even without the cameras. Cameras afford a false sense of security, encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.

The solution isn’t for police to watch the cameras more diligently. Unlike an officer walking the street, cameras look only in particular directions at particular locations.

Criminals know this and can easily adapt by moving their crimes to places not watched by a camera — and there will always be such places.

And although a police officer on the street can respond to a crime in progress, someone watching a CCTV screen can only dispatch an officer to arrive much later. By their very nature, cameras result in underused and mis-allocated police resources.

Cameras aren’t completely ineffective, of course. Used properly, cctv surveillance is effective in reducing crime in enclosed areas with minimal foot traffic. Combined with adequate lighting, they substantially reduce both personal attacks and auto-related crime in multistory parking garages. And sometimes it is cost-effective for a store to install cameras to catch shoplifters or a casino to install cameras to detect cheaters.

But these are instances where there is a specific risk at a specific location.

The important question isn’t whether cameras solve past crime or deter future crime; it’s whether they’re a good use of resources. They’re expensive, both in money and in their Orwellian effects on privacy and civil liberties. Their inevitable misuse is another cost; police have spied on naked women in their own homes, shared nude images, sold best-of videos and even spied on national politicians. Though we might be willing to accept these downsides for a real increase in security, cameras don’t provide that.

Despite our predilection for technological solutions over human ones, the funds now spent on CCTV cameras would be far better spent on hiring and training police officers.

We live in a unique time in our society: Cameras are everywhere, but we can still see them. Ten years ago, cameras were much rarer than they are today. Ten years from now, they’ll be so small, you won’t even notice them.

Already, people can buy cctv surveillance cameras in household objects to spy on their spouses and baby sitters — I particularly like the one hidden in a shower mirror — or cameras in pens to spy on their colleagues, and they can remotely turn on laptop cameras to spy on anyone. Companies are developing police state-type CCTV surveillance technologies for China, technology that will find its way into countries like the U.S.

If universal cctv surveillance were the answer, lots of us would have moved to the former East Germany. If surveillance cameras were the answer, camera-happy London, with something like 500,000 of them at a cost of $700 million, would be the safest city on the planet.

We didn’t, and it isn’t, because cctv surveillance and cctv surveillance cameras don’t make us safer. The money spent on cameras in London, and in cities across America, could be much better spent on actual policing.

So the verdict would seem to be in disfavor according to Schneier. But it is important to remember that cctv systems are tools not saviours. And the tool is only going to be effective if used appropriately. Those assassins who paid no attention to the cctv surveillance also disregarded all other law enforcement measures.  CCTV is simply another cog in the wheel of civil bahaviour observance and as such is a valuable tool to not only the “Bobby on the Beat” but to anyone responsible for civil compliance. Don’t you think the cctv images are better than a description by a lawman. Easier to distribute and harder to disclaim as well.

Related Blogs

• The weeds have the answer | Reportage Enviro
• Home Security Cameras: Want Of The Hour | Knowgenie: Free Articles & Tips

Video surveillance cameras have over the years captured some of the most defining moments in history. Whether it was the last few steps taken by the crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger, or the haunting images of the 9/11 terrorist boarding their ill fated flights, video has often been  the silent witness to both tragedy and triumph. It’s role in documenting historical events is beyond reproach.

But is video surveillance an effective tool when it comes to prosecuting criminal activity? There are many different opinions on this questions. Some may point to statistics which indicate that geographical areas with a significant surveillance presence are just as likely to have criminal activity as jurisdictions with less of a presence. Others will argue that a significant CCTV presence will curb criminal behavior and assist the authorities in collecting evidence and prosecuting crimes.

As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of both arguments, but weighs more heavily in favor of it’s effectiveness in not only solving crimes, but also preventing crime. In fact, the question should really be ‘Is CCTV video surveillance an effective crime prevention tool’.

Video surveillance is more about deterrence than it is about evidence collection. Red light cameras do catch drivers in the act, but their role is much more about making drivers think twice before running a red light.

In a 1991 study, CCTV surveillance in convenience stores showed promising results as a crime prevention tool. A sample of 81 stores were studied for 1 year prior and 1 year after the installation of CCTV camera surveillance systems. The number of robberies decreased by 53 percent after the first year. This represents the real value of CCTV security systems.

The UK has has more CCTV camera coverage than any other country. A recent study examined the effectiveness of UK security cameras as it pertains to crime prevention. The evaluations were carried out in city centers, public housing, public transport and car parks. 11 of 22 of these study cases indicated a reduction in the crime rate. CCTV is clearly an effective deterrence to criminal activity.

Video is also a useful tool for law enforcement agencies, but it must be noted that CCTV recordings cannot make use of audio information – if sound is recorded along with the video, the recording is then considered a wiretap and therefore falls under rules which may require a warrant. This is why police often make use of lip readers when trying to decipher the contents of surveillance video.

CCTV video is often used in police investigations. In Canada, over 70% of all bank robberies are captured by CCTV cameras. Additionally, close to 75% of all commercial crime investigations have made use of CCTV recordings. Commercial CCTV cameras have also been instrumental in helping to find missing persons. The effectiveness of the technology as an investigation tool is therefore also well established.

I believe most people are convinced of the effectiveness of video surveillance and may even feel a certain amount of comfort in knowing that it adds to their sense of personal safety. They understand that their chances of being a victim of crime are reduced when they find themselves in an area monitored with CCTV cameras.

If this is the case, then why is CCTV surveillance so controversial? Upon closer examination, concerns people have with CCTV cameras tend to pertain to privacy issues as opposed to safety issues.

Many people fear the emergence of a ‘Big Brother’ society where your every move is recorded. This probably won’t happen. The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras function in a passive fashion, recording events to be played back only in the event of a crime. Because of the considerable storage requirements needed to save video, most footage is only kept for short periods of time.

Because video is not perpetual in nature, it’s impact on tracking our daily activities is not sequential enough to warrant concerns over privacy. A bigger threat exist with location aware  devices such as GPS trackers and cell phones. Imagine if people could track your every move in real time over the web. That is happening today and is a much bigger threat to our privacy.

In conclusion, surveillance technology is helping us document history in much the same way as books and photos have for thousands of years. Statistics clearly point to the effectiveness of the technology in crime prevention and investigation. It’s use will continue to be controversial with privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

In the UK, home of twenty percent of the world’s CCTV cameras, there is mounting concern about its invasion and lack of regulation. “UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign.”

The thought-provoking questions they ask are good ones.

They want to know, for instance, why, if television programming and licensing is so heavily regulated in the UK that the same legislators have never considered licensing for CCTV use and installation? They ask also if the crime statistics touted by CCTV proponents are accurate, or if the criminals are merely being moved down the road to commit crimes elsewhere.

They want to know if civil liberties are being taken into consideration, or if they’re ignored and thus violated. They want to know if close circuit television is really worth what they’re paying for it. Does it really, for instance, deter crime, provide swift proof of guilt and reduce the number of police officers needed to keep a vigilant watch?

They also ruminate about whether these cameras, once in place, are actually being adequately monitored. If, in fact, there are enough folks doing the watching that quick response can be affected once a crime in action is caught on camera. If that is not the case – if, in fact, as they suspect, one person is paid to view a vast number of monitors at one time, then the cost of the equipment may in fact not be offset by the policing authorities’ availability to arrive on the scene in a timely fashion.

There are many concerns for the rights of citizens caught on tape as well. What, for instance, is the policy on who sees what faces and how long those faces remain on tape and where?

To what other uses and outside firms will information garnered by CCTV be handed out? Will racial profiles of neighborhoods, for instance, be sold to commercial marketing companies? If these videos are sold to outside firms what’s to keep them from using them in commercial ways that would include the display of photos? Might not an advertising agency, for instance, use the photo of a prominent person such as an entertainer or politician, as part of an advertising campaign? And if so, what about the rights of said entertainer or politician? What about her or his rights to financially gain from the commercial enterprise?

These and many other questions are being asked by concerned British residents who see CCTV as potentially invasive if not regulated, and in the hands of the wrong people.

They also point out zealously that the May 2000 Declaration of Human Rights, delivered in Strasbourg, confirms the illegality of the unregulated and undisclosed use of CCTV. Its Article 8 stated it to be an interference to the applicant’s right to expectation of privacy and that this interference was a direct result of its not being regulated by any governing agency.