Tuesday, 7 April 2009
When it comes to CCTV, we live in an age of innocence
You'd think after all these years of walking along chatting on a mobile phone (cellphone), that by now the novelty would have worn off. And yet time and again I'm struck by the apparent simplicity of the concept against a backdrop of some quite spectacularly clever technology, that we all just take for granted.
It will perhaps come as no surprise that I'm actually old enough to appreciate a world before mobile communications, in fact I can still readily recall the immense effort required for my then young and spindly fingers to turn the old rotary dialler, on our ancient rattly old bakolite telephone.
Now you could be forgiven for wondering what the heck this has to do with CCTV, but quite by accident, I had something of a eureka moment the other day.
I happened to come across an interesting article written on the subject of video surveillance, possibly one of perhaps hundreds that I might chance upon in an average week.
What set this piece apart was not so much the content, as there's very little written on the subject that I haven't already seen a few dozen times before.
No, what really set this apart, was not only was it written by a very thoughtful and articulate young lady in her twenties, but she also happened to be a resident of the United States that is currently studying in the U.K.
I've long been wondering about the precise mechanics of deterrence in relation to the way we attempt to use CCTV as a crime reducing technology, and how our experiences in the U.K. tend to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the simple concept of 'cameras cut crime'.
I certainly know enough about the subject to realise that it isn't simply about using the technology, but equally it's as important to apply the correct techniques, and in so doing properly fulfil a defined and achievable strategy.
Now coming back to the young lady gracing our shores, her perception of CCTV and it's implications on our society, were reported by her to be very different from those of her british peers, and this simple observation was what finally caused the penny to drop.
Since successive U.K. governments started to fund the widescale deployment of Public Space CCTV schemes back in the '80s, that would mean that anyone under the age of 25, would not really know a world without surveillance cameras. From their earliest memories of childhood, the cameras have always been there, albeit that it's only been in the last ten or so years that the installation of cameras has really taken off big time.
So on the basis that over here, people of a certain age have become generationally habituated to the presence of CCTV, barely concerned as to whether the systems are operating efficiently, or at all for that matter, it can't really be any great surprise that youth crime is stubbornly refusing to respond to a deterrence, which an older generation have naively invested billions in, and which to this day is promoted as a technological cure-all for societies many and varied ills.
There has to be something not quite right, when the old duffers think it's money well spent, and the target of their attentions, the less than bright young things ... just ain't bovvered.
As a society, we perhaps need to take a step back and consider carefully all the achievable objectives, and how best to focus resources on addressing the actions of the law defying, without continuing to routinely impact on the everyday lives of the law abiding.
Or then again, we could just keep on spending a large fortune on covering the country with as many CCTV cameras as possible, and still have one of the least enviable crime rates amongst all of our european neighbours.
Decisions, decisions .....
Labels: CCTV, Civil Liberties, Closed Circuit Television, crime, crime reduction, privacy, video surveillance
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Defining the use of video surveillance, in a Homeland Security role
The U.K.'s wide scale adoption of CCTV over the last dozen or so years, has in many situations, seen the enthusiastic deployment of technology looking for an appropriately defined purpose.
The idea of public space (mostly Town Centre) camera schemes being tasked with improving public safety, may be a commendable concept in itself, but the legacy of almost exclusively deploying "active" CCTV systems with the inherent cost and operational limitations dictated by their structure, has resulted in a less than convincing argument for continuing the funding of a technology, which parts of the media would now have us believe is failing before our eyes.
The truth of the situation is that much which has gone before, has been an expensive experiment in an open space laboratory, where the outcome in terms of actual effectiveness, has been both predictable and lately proven.
Now anyone that's read any of my spurious scribblings over the years, will be aware that this is something of a recurring theme for me, albeit that it is particularly relevant to review the state of play at this time, given that many of the mistakes made over here, are now being enthusiastically replicated by regional governments and law enforcement agencies, right around the globe.
Where perhaps ten years ago, the motivation for deployment was based on anti social behaviour and mostly low level criminality, the world as we know it has changed in nature, and the ever present threat of terrorism, is now more than at any previous time in our history, a driving factor for the further deployment of expansive and expensive, video surveillance networks.
We only have to look across the pond to our colleagues in the U.S., to see that massive amounts of Homeland Security funding are being channelled into large public space security camera schemes, which despite being less readily acceptable overall to the good folks stateside, are nevertheless being promoted as a necessary weapon in the fight against terrorism.
And yet experience here tends to suggest that given the often low operating efficiency of the average Town Centre camera, the real potential for addressing Homeland Security issues actually lies with the massive number of relatively low tech privately owned and operated cameras, most of which are in urgent need of some proper 'care in the community'.
Considering the security camera images captured of the London Bombers back in July 2005, including the failed attacks a fortnight later, and more recently of course the attempted car bomb attack on Glasgow airport, it is now widely accepted by most law enforcement professionals that privately owned and operated CCTV systems will undoubtedly in the future, hold the key to potentially unlocking both Homeland Security and serious organised crime investigations.
The fact that vast sums of investment continue to be pumped into unsustainable mostly inefficient publicly owned schemes, whilst little if any practical assistance is invested in improving smaller privately maintained installations, speaks volumes for the clarity of thought currently being applied to tackling one of the most serious issues facing our modern societies.
It's perhaps ironic that over here, government grants can so easily be obtained to help stop heat being lost through the roof, yet there's no actual mechanism available to help keep the roof on in the first place.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, crime, homeland security, terrorism, video surveillance
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]