UK CCTV...lessons in failure and misuse

[Policenaut]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11748

Link from linked article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

"Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe."

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7369543.stm

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) being used to convict petty offenses like:

* Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool used surveillance to investigate dog fouling.

* Bolton Council also used the act to investigate littering.

* The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea conducted surveillance on the misuse of a disabled parking badge.

* Liverpool City Council used Ripa to identify a false claim for damages.

* Conwy Council used the law to spy on a person who was working while off sick.

So from the linked articles CCTV is not a deterrent for crime, expensive, used to convict less than 3% of street robberies and is also being misused under an anti-terror act by local authorities to go after citizens involved in petty crimes. Meanwhile I've seen people (some here) say that CCTV is the bees knees. What do you think of this technology and it's implementation? Is it the predecessor to Big Brother or is it just a tool that can, is, and will be misused by people in power? Or maybe you disagree?

 

[Dragon]

Policenaut - do you want to discuss CCTV or RIPA? They are very different things - your thread, but I suggest you choose one or the other if you want a fruitful debate.

 

[brodski]

since when was RIPA an anti-terror measure? RIPA is just what it says, a piece of legislation which gives overarching regulation to the use of investigatory powers.

 

[Dragon]

since when was RIPA an anti-terror measure? RIPA is just what it says, a piece of legislation which gives overarching regulation to the use of investigatory powers.

Exactly - in fact pre-RIPA some things were hardly regulated at all. Policenaut - I suggest you do a bit of reading up on "directed surveillance" to see why various investigators have to get RIPA authorities for even quite minor matters.

 

[chillzero]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11748

Link from linked article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

"Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe."

That 3%, does that include cases that were solved using other methods, but had the confirmation and support of CCTV images to make the case?

 

[Policenaut]

The thread is about CCTV. Ripa was just a legislative tool being used currently to display how CCTVs can and are being misused. Also yes I had it a bit mixed up when saying that ripa was an anti-terror law. Probably from the headline of the last article "A survey of UK councils has found some are spying on litter louts and people who let dogs foul public places, using laws to track criminals and terrorists.".

As to the last question there is nothing in the article that mentions this but going from basic assumptions I would say it does include crime solved with any CCTV assistance. I could be wrong of course. Also I just found a document that is fairly interesting especially the points about how CCTV could be improved:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...rosecution+statistic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

From the document it appears that CCTVs could easily be used to prosecute more cases if upgrades were made to court equipment among other things.

 

[Cuddles]

So from the linked articles CCTV is not a deterrent for crime, expensive, used to convict less than 3% of street robberies and is also being misused under an anti-terror act by local authorities to go after citizens involved in petty crimes.

Firstly, as has been pointed out it's not an anti terror act. Other than that, what do you think is the actual point of CCTV? Is it there solely to catch robberies? If you think so, then certainly it's not all that effective. However, I certainly wouldn't think that is all that it is for, and it appears the police and councils agree with me. Things are made crimes for a reason. If CCTV helps catch people who commit them, what difference does it make that some are only fairly minor crimes?

I suspect that CCTV doesn't reduce robberies mainly because many criminals aren't complete idiots. CCTV cameras are usually very obvious and are in well used public areas. The former makes it easy for robbers to avoid them, and the latter means they are unlikely to be areas with much robbery in the first place. If they put hidden cameras in dark allies, maybe the results would be different. I suspect that if you look at things like vandalism the rates would be very different with and without cameras.

However, CCTV has some big problems that mean I don't generally agree with it, or at least the willy-nilly implementation. Firstly, it's a misnomer since many, I believe most, are not actually CC at all. A camera in a shop wired to a recorder in a back room is closed circuit. A camera in a street broadcasting a wireless signal to a central control room is not. This means there are some big privacy issues since the whole point of CCTV is that it's secure, and most of the public ones just aren't.

The other big problem is the cost to benefit. This is kind of what the articles in the OP were getting out, but with far too much hyperbole and not enough serious analysis. For example, the study referred to apparently says that CCTV doesn't help significantly in solving crimes, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere whether they help reduce crime in the first place.

What do you think of this technology and it's implementation? Is it the predecessor to Big Brother

If they can only catch less than 3% of robberies, that's going to be the least effective Big Brother ever thought of.

Overall, I don't think the problem is either the road to a police state or the misuse of power, it's just bog-standard incompetence and bureaucracy. Are cameras put in useful places? Are they good enough quality? Is it practical to actually watch them all? Has it been defined what their supposed to be used for in the first place? And so on. It seems, to me at least, that CCTV cameras are often just slapped down around the place with the assumption that they will make a difference, but with little to no analysis of whether any particular camera will be useful.

 

[Naughtyhippo]

BBC 1 did a morning show called 'Missing' that said they found CCTV very helpful in trying to work out what missing people had been up to. It also helped verify sightings of missing people.

 

[Darat]

Just to add a nugget of information to the thread- be very wary of accepting this 4.5 million CCTVs figure you hear. That figure was obtained by using a very small sample (something like two streets in Putney) a few years ago and extrapolating from that.

 

[Cuddles]

Just to add a nugget of information to the thread- be very wary of accepting this 4.5 million CCTVs figure you hear. That figure was obtained by using a very small sample (something like two streets in Putney) a few years ago and extrapolating from that.

Kind of related is something I always wonder - what exactly do they mean by CCTV? Do they mean government funded ones linked to the police? Local councils? Cameras on private premises? The vast majority of cameras are security cameras in private businesses, so it's rather silly to complain about them when it's entirely someone's one choice whether they install them or not.

 

[Darat]

The 4.5 million figures refers to all CCTV cameras whether installed by Mr And Mrs Smith to keep a view on their prize leeks or by a local authority.

 

[Policenaut]

That's interesting. I was not intending the discussion to be about retail or other cctv's but only government ones (and not the ones giving out fines for speeding). So is there any figure just relating to the government ones? Also if you couldn't tell my first post was a bit sarcastic and hyperbole but I do believe that CCTVs are being misused. I'll add some more later but I'm in NY and fairly busy. Also read that link I posted before if you're interested in this. It's pretty interesting even if you just skim over it and read the suggestions after each section.

 

[Cuddles]

The 4.5 million figures refers to all CCTV cameras whether installed by Mr And Mrs Smith to keep a view on their prize leeks or by a local authority.

I thought that was probably the case. Which just makes it all the sillier when people start complaining about police states and wasting our taxes. Does anyone have any actual figures about government/police CCTV, how much it costs, how many there are, the actual crime rates rather than just convictions? I see plenty of articles and arguments about CCTV, but I don't think I've ever seen any actual evidence to support either side.

 

[Darat]

That's interesting. I was not intending the discussion to be about retail or other cctv's but only government ones (and not the ones giving out fines for speeding). So is there any figure just relating to the government ones? Also if you couldn't tell my first post was a bit sarcastic and hyperbole but I do believe that CCTVs are being misused. I'll add some more later but I'm in NY and fairly busy. Also read that link I posted before if you're interested in this. It's pretty interesting even if you just skim over it and read the suggestions after each section.

I don't think so and I'm don't think there is any registration requirements for setting up a CCTV. I suspect that most are in fact not under the control of the national governments but local government and the police.