A recent report states that Americans want surveillance cameras. The consensus is that people are willing to give up some privacy in order to gain some security. This begs the question of whether surveillance cameras are effective in preventing crime:

“…What is not clear to some San Francisco residents and public officials is whether the city’s surveillance effort is worth the cost, in money and privacy. Running separate programs since 2005, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office has spent about $500,000 on the cameras, and the Housing Authority has spent another $200,000.

…Crime statistics where the city has installed the cameras are sketchy and incomplete. The Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice said earlier this year that the overall number of reported crimes within 100 feet of 15 of the city’s cameras dipped 11 percent within the first three months after the devices were installed. But at eight of the 15 individual locations, crime was up.”

link: Is it worth the cost?

At this point, there is insufficient empirical evidence that surveillance cameras impact upon the crime rate. Some surveillance cameras, such as the system in San Francisco, do not have human real time monitoring. At best, the data are mixed on the effectiveness of surveillance cameras. The solution proposed by some supporters of the surveillance network is very simple: more cameras.

Catherine Forsythe
Director of Operations
FlyingHamster:  http://flyinghamster.com/

[tags]surveillance cameras, privacy, security, empirical data, effectiveness, monitoring, real time response[/tags]