Police Acknowledge That Surveillance Cameras Do Not Deter Crime
- 3
- Add a Comment
Surveillance cameras are synonymous with security and preventing crime. At least, this is the common perception associated with surveillance. It is the sacrifice of some privacy for some security. In Britain, where there is so much citizen monitoring that it is called the ‘Surveillance Society’, the empirical data are contrary to common beliefs. Surveillance cameras do little to deter crime:
“Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.”
link: CCTV boom has failed to slash crime, say police
Recently, a Korean court ruled that surveillance cameras were source of work stress. The psychological literature has demonstrated for decades that the mere observation of an event changes behaviour. Now, after countless billions have been dedicated to video surveillance, the emerging empirical data do not support their effectiveness against crime. Undoubtedly, the surveillance industry will be presenting their own data to counter these findings.
Catherine Forsythe
Director of Operations
FlyingHamster
3 Comments
Mike
May 6th, 2008
at 2:41pm
Who cares if they prevent crime?
They help ID the slime so we can easily put them away.
I don’t think any device, law, mechanism, gadget, etc. will ever rid us of crime or provides 100% security. For that, law enforcement would have to install hundreds of camera covering every possible public place.
However, even if the suspect isn’t caught directly on camera in the progress of committing a crime they could, potentially, be caught driving down some road a block away or walking down a street close to the scene. It can be used to piece together events too and put them in the area of the crime.
Again, nothing is totally secure–not even public areas under the eyes of cameras.
peace!
Chris
May 6th, 2008
at 3:34pm
I am amazed how the British press has jumped on board in relation to this sound bite - do they really care that CCTV is actually preventing crime or not - they are looking to stir up a debate in relation to civil liberites; Im not quite sure.
CCTV is bogged down by a variety of factors which directly impact on the operational effectiveness of the system. The appropriate legislation needs to be addressed - Data Protection, RIPA and even the good old planning laws. Each of these requires an investment which impacts on the cost and overall running. Where am I going with this…
To my mind there are two types of CCTV in use today, public funded and privately owned systems and in there lies the problem. The public owned system (local authority control) has a budget which it must set and meet, this needs to fit in with their overall strategy. On the other hand the privately run systems, which are installed in the likes of large stores, and are operated for one thing and one thing only - to protect profits. The motivation to make this system work is financially based and will always win out against locally citizen funded systems.
Also what is the motivation for the release of this story by a Police Source, well look at the job title of the author - head of imaging for the Met Police - what is his problem with the current system. He wants a better system that will track faces in a crowd - I can only imaging that this story coincides with the Governments revisiting the anti terror laws and conventional funding streams were not available unless there is a hook.
Rant over.
E2001
May 8th, 2008
at 2:12pm
The major percentage of crime is perpetrated either by kids with little else to lose, but the “respect” of whatever gang they pretend to belong to; or some sad junkie in search of his next fix. Cameras don’t do much to deter either one.