Camera Security Now
Request A Quote
Whatever Kind of System You Need, Our Consultants Can Get You The right System, Including Installation. Get Our 4-Channel Package For $1000 Video Surveillance For Government. Get Our 8-Channel Package For $1800 Video Surveillance For Businesses. Get Our 16-Channel Package For $2300 Video Surveillance For Schools & Universities. Call your Security Constultant today at 800-440-1662.

CCTV Surveillance Cameras & Crime Solving

A U.K. Commentary
Posted 09/20/07 By Andy Wendt

A recent report  from the United Kingdom, one of the world’s most prolific users of CCTV Cameras, indicates there is no evidence that CCTV security cameras in London help solve crime.

The report shows that there are 10,534 CCTV cameras in use through out the 32 London Boroughs. The report then compares the number of cameras in each borough with the percentage of crimes solved there. Those comparisons showed the percentage of crimes solved was no higher in boroughs with extensive CCTV coverage than it was in boroughs with a limited a CCTV presence.

The Liberal Democratic Party, the third largest political party in the U.K., is using this report to argue for a repeal of the “Surveillance Society” they believe the U.K. has become.

While some may find this report shocking, or contrary to common sense expectations, I find it perfectly explainable.

The basis for my explanation is found not in the technology, as there is no doubt the U.K. leads the world in the development of Security Camera Systems, but rather the political reality in which the technology is deployed.

The 10,534 cameras mentioned in the report are all owned and operated by local London authorities. The same local London authorities that the Liberal Democratic Party would much rather see the countries CCTV "dollars" being spent on. As the Liberal Democrats argument, all privacy objections aside, is that true crime solving and crime prevention is best handled by humans and not cameras.

This argument is not without merit as I am sure there is a point for any technology at which its saturation becomes ineffective without significant increases in human manpower to manage it.

The effectiveness of CCTV Security Cameras in the U.K. is therefore directly related to the effectiveness of the local authorities and their ability to manage the information the cameras provide them.

One can not help but wonder if the percentages of solved crimes would be any higher if these cameras were equally as prevalent in private institutions. As opposed to being managed by the government whose primary strategy is to  mount a CCTV camera 30 feet in the air on every street corner.

For those who may not be aware, it should be noted, the anti-CCTV movement in the UK is quite large and organized. The growth of the government managed surveillance in the U.K. has left a significant percentage of the populations feeling disenfranchised. As the U.K. has become a highly socialist society, where even television reception requires a license, the law has not been able to keep up with the advancements in the technology. A fact whose irony is not lost on those who believe the governments use of the cameras to be an invasion of privacy.

As mentioned above most government managed cameras are mounted out of reach of the subjects they wish to surveil, not to achieve the best picture possible, but simply for the physical protection of the camera. Protection not necessarily from traditional criminals but from otherwise law abiding citizens who feel threatened from the invasion of privacy the cameras represent.

So in this political context of popular resentment, possible over saturation of the technology, possible under staffing of those in charge of managing the camera systems, and the inherent ineptitude that any large government bureaucracy tends to bring to any cause, I for one fine nothing shocking in the latest report.

My hope for the government in the U.K. is that they break their long standing socialistic tendencies, that they realize that no government with any technology can be all things to everyone, that they admit the CCTV technology with out enough "boots on the ground" is nothing more than a video database for historical reference and more about protecting the government than protecting the people.

In regards to the private business sector: I hope the CCTV backlash in the U.K. does not slow the growth of CCTV camera systems in the private business sector where cameras can be most effective. In the private business sector CCTV cameras are more easily placed in critical and effective locations to assist in loss prevention and management control. In the private business sector CCTV cameras are more effectively managed because, unlike the government, the private sector must make good use of all of it's resources to survive.

Andy Wendt is a Security Consultant and Technical Writer for Xponex Web and Media Services.