In This Article
Subscribe to Technology Updates
Surveillance Cameras Popular But Not Necessarily Effective
June 27, 2008 08:01 AM
Few statistics back up the helpfulness of surveillance cameras, yet U.S. cities are installing the devices by the thousands.
Email This30-Second Summary
Seattle officials this month approved $400,000 for installing surveillance cameras in city parks, and the police chief in Austin has called for round-the-clock camera surveillance throughout the city by year’s end.
But nearly seven years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, inspired a marked increase in the security networks, “no systematic national research has been undertaken to assess their effectiveness,” reports MSNBC.
Several regional studies have yielded discouraging results, such as a University of California Berkeley report that showed San Francisco’s 68 surveillance cameras have apparently not deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies.
Besides the data, or lack thereof, the cameras face another challenge: privacy activists.
“To the extent that these cameras are there to protect the public safety, it’s fine, but once they cross that threshold of getting into areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they can expect to be challenged,” said Redditt Hudson, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Naysayers may have a hard time convincing those in favor of the cameras otherwise, however.
Lauri Turner, owner of the Hatbox Haberdashery in Austin, for instance, said her shop had been the victim of more then half-a-dozen crimes. “I don’t care about the perpetrator’s rights anymore, at all,” she said.
But nearly seven years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, inspired a marked increase in the security networks, “no systematic national research has been undertaken to assess their effectiveness,” reports MSNBC.
Several regional studies have yielded discouraging results, such as a University of California Berkeley report that showed San Francisco’s 68 surveillance cameras have apparently not deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies.
Besides the data, or lack thereof, the cameras face another challenge: privacy activists.
“To the extent that these cameras are there to protect the public safety, it’s fine, but once they cross that threshold of getting into areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they can expect to be challenged,” said Redditt Hudson, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Naysayers may have a hard time convincing those in favor of the cameras otherwise, however.
Lauri Turner, owner of the Hatbox Haberdashery in Austin, for instance, said her shop had been the victim of more then half-a-dozen crimes. “I don’t care about the perpetrator’s rights anymore, at all,” she said.
Headline Link: Security cameras on the rise despite questions of effectiveness
Nick Licata, was the only member of the Seattle City Council to vote against the city’s plan to install more cameras in its parks, citing lack of evidence that the cameras work. “There are piles of studies that show the greatest deterrent to criminal and uncivil behavior in public parks is through active social programming and the presence of police or similar official personnel,” he said.
Source: MSNBC
Background: CCTV studies; privacy concerns
A University of California Berkeley study found that found that nonviolent thefts dropped by 22 percent within 100 feet of the surveillance cameras installed in San Francisco, but the cameras had no effect on burglaries, car theft, or violent crime.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
A government study released in 2002 showed that CCTV (closed circuit television) systems in Britain and the United States had little effect on preventing violent crime. The report said, “Overall, it can be concluded that CCTV reduces crime to a small degree.”
Source: The BBC
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest research center focusing on civil liberties issues, includes a statement about video surveillance on its Web site: “In the past decade, successive UK governments have installed over 1.5 million cameras in response to terrorist bombings. While the average Londoner is estimated to have their picture recorded more than three hundred times a day, no single bomber has been caught.”
Source: Electronic Privacy Information Center
When California was considering expanding its surveillance camera system in August 2007, the ACLU issued a news release criticizing the move. Recommendations from California ACLU affiliates were listed in the release, including that “Any city with a video surveillance system already in place should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the system's effectiveness and impact on privacy.”
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
Opinions & Analysis: ‘George Orwell was prophetic’
Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer at BT, analyzed the use of surveillance cameras in a recent piece for The Guardian. “Most CCTV footage is never looked at until well after a crime is committed. When it is examined, it’s very common for the viewers not to identify suspects. Lighting is bad and images are grainy, and criminals tend not to stare helpfully at the lens,” he wrote. Crimes that are solved by surveillance camera are the exception and tend to get the most press, he says.
Source: The Guardian
Many readers responded when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch asked “Are public surveillance cameras an invasion of privacy?” in a blog post in October 2007, as the city prepared to install a new network of cameras downtown. “George Orwell was prophetic even if he did have the date wrong,” wrote one commenter, referencing the author’s novel “1984.” Another wrote that the cameras are “No more an invasion of privacy than the ubiquitous cell phone/camera or video camera.”
Source: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2008 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
