CCTV : "Omnipresent and Not Helpful"

by jordan | June 26, 2008 at 01:31 pm | 208 views | 2 comments

Security guru Bruce Schneier, author of Beyond Fear, wrote the below article about CCTV cameras and their (in) effectiveness in solving crime.

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.

I agree with the sentiment above. Cameras are, by their very nature, passive, and serve no preventative purpose.  By the way, the link within the blockquote above leads to this interesting tidbit:

[...]there are no official (or even unofficial) statistics on how many CCTV cameras there are. The information commissioner doesn't know, the government has repeatedly told parliament that figures are not collected[...]
So we're told that the UK government is spending all this money on CCTV equipment but has no ida how many cameras it's buying? Does that sound right to you?

Add a comment Comments (2)

Heiky

Hey Jordan, great post! I definitely agree. Cameras itself are impersonal and cannot portray reality to most audiences. Reality and recognition of reality is determined by people themselves through perception, and perception is selective, often working through schemas and hindered by framing. One cannot look at images on the camera and synchronize it with one's original perception at the scene. Definitely something for us to think about.

politisite
good stuff:

jordan, I like this story. It's good stuff. If one can do majic trick in front of you and you can't figure them out.  How much more a criminal?

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

June 26, 2008 at 01:31 pm by jordan, 208 views, 2 comments

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from