Do You or Don't You?
Recently a colleague asked me whether I had seen any research regarding the risk of not incorporating video surveillance (and specifically IP video surveillance) into a security plan. To date, I haven't seen any research in that respect. But the question does set the stage for some interesting debates. I took a quick glance at the American Civil Liberties Union website and found a discussion titled: "What's Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?" Here is a summary from that site:
"Four Problems With Pubic Video Surveillance
1. Video surveillance has not been proven effective...the real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that.
2. CCTV is susceptible to abuse
- Criminal abuse
- Institutional abuse
- Discriminatory targeting
- Voyerism
3. Lack of limits or controls on cameras use
- A concensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems
- Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems
4. Video surveillance will have a chilling effect on public life"
That site reference again if you would like to read the details. I encourage you to do so as there were some very interesting examples given for each of these reasons. I haven't seen much in the way of research or statistics myself related to crime reduction or deterrence as a result of having video surveillance cameras in place. So, they have a point that it isn't evident that there is proof crime is deterred.
On the other hand, I've watched various programs and news reports with a different point of view now that I'm involved in the video surveillance industry (imagine that) and I get the sense that video data does have value for post-incident research. Two specific examples come to mind right away. The first is a news report from MSN titles "Boosting for Billions". The video shows clips from shoplifting activities and focuses on 'boosters' (professional shoplifters). While the ALCU has a point that the presence of the video cameras obviously didn't deter the behaviour, the data captured certainly served as a tool to investigate the problem as well as learn the methods used by the criminals. The assumption then is that it helped to build a case against repeat offenders as well as (again, an assumption on my part) implementing preemptive measures against the methods used.
Another example I have is from a television documentary showing a confusing railroad crossing where the traffic light leads a semi-truck driver into the intersection (by turning green at the same time that the railroad warning signal is triggered by an oncoming train). Without video from the cameras at the intersection, it would appear that the truck driver was at fault. But after closer investigation of the video from multiple angles, it is clear that the traffic light and the train signal are not in scynch - thus putting the truck driver in a life threatening situation. (Update - the truck driver and pet dog survived the crash.)
In closing, I'll share with you a comment from an IT manager at a major city in the U.S. regarding the video surveillance network they have in place. He claimed that the citizens themselves had asked to have more video surveillance coverage once they realized the value of the existing implementation.
Certainly shows that there will always be two sides of the debate regarding "do you or don't you deploy video surveillance?".
Hi Shereen,
Interesting post. Whether or not the ACLU is correct, their coverage is heavily biased.
I recently did an analysis of the 20 top cctv effectivness studies.
You might be interested in the report: http://ipvideomarket.info/report/is_public_cctv_effective
Cheers,
John
Posted by john honovich on October 18, 2008 at 01:36 AM MDT #
Just to provide a slightly alternative view on the four problems ....
1) Video surveillence generally is NOT effective, for one simple reason .... it is not being used correctly.
This basic argument could probably fill a chapter, but the simplest way to explain it is in relation to running a public transport system. If you want to move people from A to Z you need to use vehicles. Now if you use two seater sports cars, it isn't going to work properly, but if you use coaches and buses, chances are it will.
The same can be said for using CCTV. Use the right technology with the correct techniques and much progress could be made very quickly.
2) & 3) In order for security cameras to be used appropriately, there needs to be statutory regulation and effective control procedures in place. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened anywhere around the world.
4) The concept of 'chilling' is somewhat misunderstood, and generally misrepresented.
Whenever security cameras are installed, there is a short term effect on subject behaviour, but as habituation kicks in, the behaviour normally returns to a pre installation level, fairly quickly. This is the main reason why in some situations, after a period of time, it is not that unusual to see crime levels climb back up again, despite the presence of CCTV. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but again just as a brief observation, you hopefully get the point.
Video surveillance can be used both effectively and sympathetically, but it doesn't happen by accident. The correct deployment of systems should be based on 'Best Practice' coupled with broad experience; not that it's likely to happen anytime soon :-(
Posted by Jon on November 03, 2008 at 06:52 AM MST #