Surveillance cameras
Surveillance cameras are devices used for monitoring public spaces, primarily aimed at crime deterrence and aiding law enforcement in detecting and prosecuting offenses. Widely implemented across the United States, these cameras are often operated from centralized police stations, where recordings are kept for varying durations. The effectiveness of closed-circuit television (CCTV) in reducing crime rates varies significantly, with some studies indicating reductions of up to 90%, while others report minimal impact or even increases in crime. Despite their potential benefits, the use of surveillance cameras raises important public concerns regarding civil rights and potential biases in monitoring practices, particularly affecting minority communities.
Surveys indicate that a significant portion of the public supports the use of surveillance technology, with many homeowners adopting it for personal security purposes. The advancement of video analysis tools and facial recognition technology has enhanced the capabilities of surveillance systems, although challenges remain in proving their deterrent effect on crime. Ongoing debates highlight the balance between security measures and privacy rights, exemplified by legislation such as San Francisco's 2022 ordinance allowing police access to live feeds from private surveillance cameras. Overall, while surveillance cameras are heralded for their contributions to public safety, they also necessitate careful consideration of ethical implications and community impacts.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Surveillance cameras
SIGNIFICANCE: Widely practiced throughout the United States, the electronic monitoring of people in public areas represents an important application of technology in the face of increasing concern about crime in such areas. Moreover, surveillance cameras can deter crime while reducing demands on personnel time. At the same time, criminal courts have found that evidence from surveillance cameras increases guilty pleas.
The commission of crimes in public spaces has long been a focus of concern, especially to law-enforcement authorities. Much of the impetus for the development and implementation of closed-circuit television surveillance (CCTV) has come from Great Britain, which has the most extensive CCTV monitoring in the world—including tens of thousands of surveillance cameras in London alone. The data firm IHS estimates that as of 2021, there were more than one billion surveillance cameras installed globally.
CCTV monitoring is usually operated remotely from central stations that are typically police headquarters. The actual monitoring of the cameras themselves is done by police or civilian personnel, who make surveillance recordings that are kept on file for various periods. The amounts of personnel time that different agencies allot to monitoring cameras and recordings vary greatly.
The impact of CCTV monitoring the commission of crimes is difficult to measure, as reported results vary greatly: Changes in crime rates range from reductions as high as 90 percent to increases of up to under 20 percent. Interpreting figures for crime increases is complicated. If one by-product of surveillance cameras is better detection of crime, then increases may actually be signs of success.
The problem of interpreting these figures reflects a duality in the basic goal of CCTV: deterring crime, while facilitating the detection and prosecution of crime. There is some evidence that surveillance cameras are more effective in deterring property crimes than violent crimes, as the latter are more likely to be impulsive and to be committed under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Under those conditions, offenders are less aware of the presence of surveillance cameras.
Another question about the impact of surveillance cameras is whether they actually help with crime prevention or merely displace it to other locations that lack surveillance. There is some evidence that this may be the case.
Public Concerns
A 2013 New York Times–CBS News public opinion poll about surveillance cameras found approval among 78 percent of respondents. According to a 2023 survey conducted by LendingTree, 72 percent of Millennial homeowners (ages 27 to 42) used home surveillance technology, followed by Gen Z homeowners (ages 18 to 26). Nearly three-quarters of homeowners with minor children used surveillance cameras inside their homes.
Moreover, surveillance cameras can enhance communications among police agencies and area businesses, while helping to revive businesses located in “trouble” areas. The police can also demonstrate their acquisition of the most up-to-date technology.
Despite the apparent effectiveness of surveillance cameras in combating crime, the use of cameras has raised several concerns about violations of citizens’ civil rights and civil liberties. For example, the unfettered discretion of CCTV operators has led some analysts to speculate that minority group members may be disproportionately represented among those being monitored. There are also concerns that the monitoring itself may be used for controversial purposes beyond the scope for which it is initially approved. The right of people to know when they are being monitored has also been emphasized.
There is also a potential for abuses arising from inaccurate or misinterpreted video-recorded information. Soundtracks are often not part of the tapes, pictures may be out of focus, and people in the videos may be difficult to identify definitively. Nevertheless, the use of CCTV is steadily rising.
Law enforcement officials have used surveillance camera footage to identify the suspects in the 2005 London subway bombings and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. The latter investigation served as a renewed reminder of both the limitations of the technology and its advances. A tremendous amount of collected evidentiary data must be analyzed, deterrence of crime remains difficult to prove, and the monitoring system is costly to run. Meanwhile, the speed with which analysis of video footage can be performed has greatly increased, and ever-improving facial and object recognition software can provide much more specific results. Debate as to the proper use of the technology continues, however. Some Americans are concerned with privacy violations. In 2022, San Francisco put into effect a new camera ordinance that gives the police the right to access live footage of privately owned Internet cameras. In the past, they were only allowed to request access to this footage.
Bibliography
Chen, Brian Y. "Security Cameras Make Us Feel Safe, But Are They Worth the Invasion?" The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/technology/personaltech/security-cameras-surveillance-privacy.html. Accessed 10 July 2024.
Gill, Martin, ed. CCTV. Leicester, England: Perpetuity Press, 2003.
Goold, B. J. CCTV and Policing: Public Area Surveillance and Police Practices in Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Kelly, Heather. "After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras." CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Apr. 2013. Web. 3 June 2016.
MacMillan, Douglas. "Eyes on the Poor: Cameras, Facial Recognition Watch Over Public Housing." The Washington Post, 16 May 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/16/surveillance-cameras-public-housing/. Accessed 10 July 2024.
McGrath, J. E. Loving Big Brother: Performance, Privacy and Surveillance Space. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Newburn, Tim, and Stephanie Hayman. Policing, Surveillance and Social Control: CCTV and Police Monitoring of Suspects. Portland, Oreg.: Willan Publishing, 2002.
Vlahos, James. "Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You." Popular Mechanics. Hearst Digital Media, 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 3 June 2016.