More CCTV cameras needed

[RichardCranium]

This looks promising:

----------------------------

Public Space CCTV, as opposed to Private (shops, garages etc) is generally ineffective at reducing crime, or bringing offenders to justice.

There have been numerous studies over the last 15 years, adopting an evidence based approach, that have demonstrated that,

Private CCTV can prevent premeditated property crime, e.g. stealing from shops, burglary of premisses in which CCTV is installed.

Public CCTV is not effective at stopping or preventing violent crimes. Although the CCTV systems may help at deploying police officers quickly to these violent crimes sites, (assuming for small towns like Drayton there are any police available to deploy.)the offenders may avoid the security cameras, since the security cameras are mounted in public zones, where violent crimes rarely take place.

In addition, when alcohol is involved, the offenders don’t consider the consequences of their actions, making the CCTV systems ineffective as a deterrent amongst the intoxicated offenders. Again for Drayton the police are looking for operators between 8 pm and 3 am, the times at which most incidents will be drink related.

Only need to think how effective Speed Cameras are at reducing speeding.

What Public CCTV is effective at is reducing the public fear of crime. However numerous studies have indicated that,

First, If the presence of Public CCTV is Public Knowledge (which is necessary to reduce the fear of crimes, offenders or those involved in anti social behaviour simply move to another part of town.

Secondly, a comparison of Crime Rates, before and after the installation of CCTV demonstrates for a short period after switch on, there is a marginal reduction in recorded incidents. Later recorded crime rates are back to pre CCTV levels.

There is a further issue when CCTV manned by volunteers, . Who manages the volunteers? I would have more concern about snooping neighbours, than I ever would about CCTV making a town safer.

Finally, this is ineffective policing on the cheap. Police presence is able to be reduced, Volunteers undertake what the police should be doing, and it is all dressed up as crime reduction.

If anyone wishes to read the studies, they include,

• UK Home Office CCTV Review 2002: The second most frequently cited report in the CCTV study literature.
• UK Parliament CCTV Summary 2002:
• Department of Justice Guide to Video Surveillance 2006:
• Study for Los Angeles CCTV Use 2008:
• New York City Apartments Effectiveness Study 2008: Examines the use of CCTV in a 120 building complex in 2005; limited to no evidence supporting benefits of surveillance
• Dozen US CCTV Case Studies circa 1999:
• Harvard CCTV Case Study 2007:
• Temple CCTV Philadelphia Case Study 2008:
• Baltimore CCTV Review 2007:
• ACLU Review of Surveillance Cameras 2008: Reviews numerous studies and contends that meta-analysis demonstrates that surveillance cameras offer no benefits.
• Washington DC CCTV Article 2008:
• San Francisco Bay Area CCTV Review 2007:
• Survey and Summary of CCTV Studies by EPIC 2002: Civil liberties research center provides an overview of issues involved and a review of findings and statistics available.
• Glascow CCTV Study 1999: Demonstrates CCTV cameras had no impact on reducing crime or solving cases.
Guardian London CCTV Review 2008: Reports that only 3% of street crimes are solved with CCTV.

----------------------------

I think I'll leave it there.

[RichardCranium]

I think I'll leave it there.

Then again, maybe I won't...

BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Peeping tom CCTV workers jailed

Two council CCTV camera operators have been jailed for spying on a naked woman in her own home.

The truth outs

The review of 44 research studies on CCTV found that they do have a modest impact on crime overall, but CCTV cameras are at their most effective in cutting vehicle crime in car parks, especially when used alongside improved lighting and the introduction of security guards.

So, there are some benefits, as most acknowledged, but the idea that CCTV has any special power to reduce crime generally is clearly flawed.

It is now becoming clear that the £500m spent by local councils on the CCTV in the decade up to 2006 has been on surveillance of the innocent public rather than crime prevention.

BBC NEWS | England | London | 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed.

The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.

In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.

David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent. CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness. It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security."

[TimberWolf]

Then again, maybe I won't...

BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Peeping tom CCTV workers jailed



The truth outs




BBC NEWS | England | London | 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'

In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.

The quality of images you see on TV do often look poor, perhaps because they've been digitally zoomed in. But these days a camera that includes things that are not needed here, such as zoom and memory, can shoot HDTV for only around £50. Not sure why a woman was filmed stripping, wouldn't she also been seen stripping in a window by passers by?

[RichardCranium]

Ooh, these are fun.



Link: Remixes of the paranoid London police "anti-terror"/suspect your neighbours posters - Boing Boing

[RichardCranium]

Not sure why a woman was filmed stripping, wouldn't she also been seen stripping in a window by passers by?

<sigh> Because they put cameras on big poles and disguise them as other things. They are designed for spying on people.

It is to my shame that when I was working for Auntie Beeb and the security guards offered me a copy of the video they had made of women undressing and couples making love in Eynham Road and Shinfield Road, that I did not take a copy and send it to the Police. Filmed using the night security cameras located here.



Here, go argue with these people: No CCTV - Reports that show ineffectiveness of CCTV

* The UK is the most spied upon nation in the world - why doesn't it have the lowest crime rate?
* Whatever happened to the UK's common law value of 'innocent until proven guilty'?
* Research shows that CCTV simply does not work, so isn't it just a huge waste of money?
* Why do the media, police and government portray CCTV as an effective tool?
* Why has there been no public debate?

[thunderlizard]

I think it would be cheaper simply to insert a small tracking chip into every baby born in our hospitals.

[TimberWolf]

Here, go argue with these people: No CCTV - Reports that show ineffectiveness of CCTV

I'm not interested in arguing with loonies, just in convincing reasons for not increasing their use. And apart from the risk of seeing a woman undressing, I haven't seen much evidence against it. Cost may be a factor, but technology costs are coming down rapidly as image quality increases. We are filmed as we enter shops and other places, so why be worried about having some more?

[TimberWolf]

Anyway given the unfounded impression I have that home security CCTV cameras are becoming more mainstream and commonplace, perhaps this will be implemented by society rather than by government.

[RichardCranium]

I'm not interested in arguing with loonies, just in convincing reasons for not increasing their use. And apart from the risk of seeing a woman undressing, I haven't seen much evidence against it.

Try following some of the links I posted and reading some of the reports that say

IT DOES NOT WORK

[Churchill]

I think it would be cheaper simply to insert a small tracking chip into every baby born in our hospitals.

I agree, there's a whole topic on the David Icke forum on just such a thing.