Surveillance Cameras

Spy cameras were going to save us from crime. The politicians told us that. The politicians lied, or perhaps they believed what they told us. However they brought us another big step toward the Nineteen Eighty-Four of George Orwell's book and the total surveillance of Big Brother. Of course a lot of politicians like the idea of control. That is why they are politicians. Apparatchiks love something, anything that is going to keep them off the dole. Remember the saying; Jack in Office is a tyrant. It is true.

A reasonable man might ask whether cameras perform as advertised. They don't. There are a few exceptions which get heavily advertised but the reality is that they are a waste of money. Bruce Schneier, a genuine security expert explains. Being the kind of man that he is, sources come with his words. This is always a good sign:-

From http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0807.html

CCTV Cameras
Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. There are exceptions, of course, and that's what gets the press. Most famously, CCTV cameras helped catch James Bulger's murderers in 1993. And earlier this year, they helped convict Steve Wright of murdering five women in the Ipswich area. But these are the well-publicized exceptions. Overall, CCTV cameras aren't very effective.

This fact has been demonstrated again and again: by a comprehensive study for the Home Office in 2005, by several studies in the US, and again with new data announced last month by New Scotland Yard. They actually solve very few crimes, and their deterrent effect is minimal.

Conventional wisdom predicts the opposite. But if that were true, then camera-happy London, with something like 500,000, would be the safest city on the planet. It isn't, of course, because of technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals.

To some, it's comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, but the truth is very different. 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. Cameras break far too often. The best camera systems can still be thwarted by sunglasses or hats. Even when they afford quick identification -- think of the 2005 London transport bombers and the 9/11 terrorists -- police are often able to identify suspects without the cameras. Cameras afford a false sense of security, encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.

The solution isn't for police to watch the cameras. Unlike an officer walking the street, cameras only look in particular directions at particular locations. Criminals know this, and can easily adapt by moving their crimes to someplace not watched by a camera -- and there will always be such places. Additionally, while a police officer on the street can respond to a crime in progress, the same officer in front of a CCTV screen can only dispatch another officer to arrive much later. By their very nature, cameras result in underused and misallocated police resources.

Cameras aren't completely ineffective, of course. In certain circumstances, they're effective in reducing crime in enclosed areas with minimal foot traffic. Combined with adequate lighting, they substantially reduce both personal attacks and auto-related crime in car parks. And from some perspectives, simply moving crime around is good enough. If a local Tesco installs cameras in its store, and a robber targets the store next door as a result, that's money well spent by Tesco. But it doesn't reduce the overall crime rate, so is a waste of money to the township.

But the question really isn't whether cameras reduce crime; the question is whether they're worth it. And given their cost (500 million pounds in the past 10 years), their limited effectiveness, the potential for abuse (spying on naked women in their own homes, sharing nude images, selling best-of videos, and even spying on national politicians) and their Orwellian effects on privacy and civil liberties, most of the time they're not. The funds spent on CCTV cameras would be far better spent on hiring experienced police officers.

We live in a unique time in our society: the cameras are everywhere, and we can still see them. Ten years ago, cameras were much rarer than they are today. And in 10 years, they'll be so small you won't even notice them. Already, companies like L-1 Security Solutions are developing police-state CCTV surveillance technologies like facial recognition for China, technology that will find their way into countries like the UK. The time to address appropriate limits on this technology is before the cameras fade from notice.

CCTV research:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/...
http://www.scotcrim.u-net.com/researchc2.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2192911.stm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
http://www.temple.edu/cj/misc/PhilaCCTV.pdf
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/21/ctv.cameras/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

London's cameras:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/...
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/...
CCTV abuses:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4849806.stm

Orwellian cameras:
http://wuntvor.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/44/...
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/...

Privacy concerns:
http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/...

Surveillance in China:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/...
A rebuttal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/...
Commentary:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/...
More good survey articles:
http://ipvideomarket.info/review/show/145
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/...
This essay was previously published in The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/26/...