Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Cameras in Britain Not Effective?
zymurgy_cat writes "An interesting piece in The Christian Science Monitor questions whether or not the 4 million plus cameras in Britain are effective in deterring crime. It touches upon the usual issues of privacy, who has access to the tapes, and so forth. Despite this, people still seem to prefer the cameras."
If I'd just committed a double murder, or cleaned out a jeweller's in the heist of the century, then I might actually be worried about cameras monitoring my every move.
As it is, I lead a life that is infinitely more boring than the scenarios listed above, and I am therefore of the opinion that if people want to watch me walking to the store at 10pm to grab a bottle of milk, they are more than welcome. Why should I care who's watching me if I have nothing to hide? And aren't cameras just an extension of any authority watching me? What's next? Policeman on the streets shouldn't look at the public as it is an infringement of civil liberties?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
If it is not reducing crime, perhaps it would have been wiser to put more police on the streets?
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
It turns out that Northeastern University has decided to post pictures of a post-Superbowl riot near the campus of Northeastern University. The intent seems to be to identify the rioters and vandals who destroyed cars and property. It seems that officials at Northeastern believe that the rioters may be somehow affiliated with the university (and few dispute that idea).
As of now, Northeastern's web site only has a couple dozen photographs of vandalism in action. But they do have videos from nearby video cameras... it may just be a matter of time before they post some video clips.
Clearly these rioters were both stupid and committed crimes, so there's no need to debate the criminal aspects of their activity.
But is it OK for anyone to secretly videotape activities in the street? Is it OK for Northeastern to pin their students based on video and film taken by random observers?
Monitoring cameras are not about democracy vs. oppression, they are about eliminating the tragedy of the commons.
Take speeding: when you speed, you save some journey time. When others speed, they endanger your life. Cameras on the road (as seen recently in France) tell individuals "your acts are not cost-free", and so they behave better.
Britain is a pretty sad place to live in, but this has nothing to do with cameras and a lot to do with geography and history. The explosion of cameras in public places may not have eliminated crime, but they appear to have kept it in check, despite rising drug use, increasing poverty in many areas, etc.
I have to vote in favour of the cameras: it's one of those cases where the common need for decent behaviour in public places overrides the individual's right to privacy. I've often thought that in other countries - like Belgium, where I live - surveillence cameras would be a good thing, cutting down on the petty crime: bag theft, broken car windows, men pissing in public, muggings, etc. which make the average citizen feel insecure and end up voting for right-wing parties.
Ironically, better public behaviour is probably better for democracy, not the reverse, since historically extremist governments rise from situations of uncertainty, not from stable societies. Crime waves push people to accepting extreme leaders in the name of law and order.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I was robbed last Saturday afternoon in the Tesco supermarket in Eastleigh (Hampshire, England), losing the electric kettle that I'd just bought from another shop (crime #1377/04). Basically I put it down for a minute and it was gone. It only cost about $25, but the same criminal may well go on to steal from hundreds more people.
The crime happened in a shop with security cameras, within a shopping mall with security cameras, within a town centre with more security cameras.
I know when the theft occurred and I gave a description within minutes to representatives of the store, mall and police. I even visited the mall's security centre, with a duplicate of the stolen kettle in an identical bag, and spoke to the staff who watch the video feeds.
Everyone denied having any useful video information and the police representative at their call centre was friendly but dismissive.
I don't know what security cameras are really for, but they don't seem to be useful in fighting crime.
I think Westminster's system is one of the most effective. Their area covers some very high crime areas (leicester square, oxford circus). They claim a 51% decrease in street crime and a 12% increase in crime clearup rates after installing a vast CCTV system.
It's mainly used to better target the limited number of police available - it's not just about deterrence and after-the-fact clear up , it's well enough integrated and implemented that they can spot pickpockets and muggers as they move in to commit a crime and direct nearby police to arrest them.
I think that a lot of people who don't live with CCTV (and haven't seen all the British fly on the wall docus about its use) misunderstand the practice.
Typically, CCTV takes one of two forms:
In either sense, it's not really surveillance in the way the one usually thinks of it. The cameras are there, but practically all of the footage never gets watched. Your movements aren't tracked. As for voyeurism, if you do something in a public place then it's probably pretty public anyway. I'm not a proponent of the "But if you've got nothing to hide" point of view, I just don't think that CCTV as it's mostly used in the UK is an invasion of privacy. There is a difference between being watched and being monitored/tracked. British citizens in public places may be almost constantly watched, but they're certainly not monitored.
Now, a massive face-tracking database, that would be different. But that's not an issue of direct surveillance, that's a question of how data is linked together and used by powerful organisations. In reality, most of those cameras are not linked together in some kind of all-powerful network across the country. A very significant proportion are in fact operated by private companies on their own premises: not by Big Brother at all.