Surveillance Cameras in London: Maybe Only One in a Thousand Solve Crimes, But at Least They All Keep an Eye on People

Brian Doherty | August 24, 2009

Britain's security camera system not such an efficient crime-buster, the BBC reports:

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.....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."

He added: "CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

"It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security...."

Nationwide, the government has spent £500m on CCTV cameras.

When it comes to one particular crime, though, the London Metropolitan Police are claiming huge effectiveness for cameras, without any particular details in the story:

A spokesman for the Met said: "We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals and most serious crime investigations have a CCTV investigation strategy."

And I guess the capstone excuse:

A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs "help communities feel safer".

Jacob Sullum on Britain's surveillance state, from Reason magazine's August/September issue.

Comments

Jakob|8.24.09 @ 8:30PM|#

What about crime rates? It would seem that cameras would be a major deterrence to would-be criminals.

|8.24.09 @ 8:37PM|#

Or they're a major boon to hoodie and ski-mask sales...

Brian Doherty|8.24.09 @ 8:47PM|#

Some data on recent London crime rates here, which give some small weight to the notion of deterrent effect, even if not solving of crimes that do happen:
http://www.thelondondailynews.com/lowest-london-crime-rates-decade-business-crime-soars-p-2723.html
The article appeared in April 2009.
samples:
There was an 11% jump in shop lifting and other business-related crime in London - this was against a backdrop of an overall drop in crime, according to police figures.

The number of assaults and gun and knife has fallen to its lowest level in 10 years.

Rape has increased by 276 offences - up 14.5% - compared to last year, but the Met said it was important to note that it was at its second lowest level in the last 10 years.

The number of Londoners who became victims of crime dropped 2.2% to 862,866 from April 2007 to March 2008.

The decrease shows falls in assault, gun and knife crime.

Police figures show there were 11,653 business-related crimes from April 2008 to March 2009, up 10.9%.

|8.24.09 @ 9:29PM|#

You know what would make me really like Surveillance Cameras? If ANYONE could access and view them at any time. Not just law enforcement or security dildos.

Joel|8.24.09 @ 9:32PM|#

And then they put them in all the government offices.

Joel|8.24.09 @ 9:32PM|#

And then we sent strip-o-grams to all the MP's.

Mike|8.24.09 @ 9:38PM|#

I'm no fan of surveillance cameras, but how can you not even mention deterrent effects? That's a poor effort, Brian.

|8.24.09 @ 9:41PM|#

I have trouble working up much horror at these cameras, aside from gut-level reactions likely caused by ominous literature/movies.

I don't know that cameras in public places give the gov't significantly more power than the ability to test for fingerprints or DNA gives them. They can't pore over every detail on video any more than they can collect *all* fingerprints or *all* the bits of DNA you shed.

Cameras in public are not necessary for a totalitarian government to function (see *all* totalitarian governments), and they're likely so easy to vandalise that I doubt they'd be very useful for gov't gone wild.

Cameras are only bad insofar as they're another tool for govts to enforce bad laws; I don't know that they're powerful enough tools that we should strenuously object to them. Shouldn't we be more concerned with overturning unjust laws (e.g., on drugs, sex, words) than with freaking out that the police might get one extra (mediocre) tool to fight crime/"crime"?

cbmclean|8.24.09 @ 10:22PM|#

This is completely off topic, but some of you may remember the cop in Wilmington, NC who accidentally shot a man through a door when h mistook another officer's battering on the door with a battering ram as shots fired from inside.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163060.html

He may be lethally irresponsible (I don't know the full facts in the case), but he apparently still likes to do good deeds.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1658633.html

Man vs. Bear|8.24.09 @ 11:26PM|#

BILLINGS (AP) - Jerry Ruth saw the grizzly for just a fraction of a second before it was on him.
Advertisement

Within seconds, the 275-pound animal had crushed the Wyoming man's jaw when it bit him in the face, fractured his rib and punctured his lung and left deep bite wounds in his thigh and scratches across his back.

After the attack, the bear left him for her three cubs, which Ruth saw for the first time as he lay bleeding on the dirt. When it reached the cubs about 15 yards away, the bear turned toward him again, "squaring off" as if to charge, Ruth recalled recently.

Ruth grabbed for the .41-caliber magnum revolver he was carrying in a hip holster and relied on his training and experience as a police officer to save his life. He fired three times, saving three bullets in case his first shots failed.

But the bear dropped and didn't move, ending the furious encounter as swiftly as it started.

"My training as a cop (is) that when deadly force is used against you, you use deadly force to repel the deadly force," Ruth said.

Tim Cavanaugh|8.25.09 @ 12:01AM|#

I hate CCTV because I'm vain and for all other reasons, But these numbers actually make sense if you think of CCTV the way the cops think of it: as another resource for investigating crimes.

Presumably there's a cost involved in reviewing hours of CCTV footage from different cameras. The cops have to decide when to pay that cost.

Many, probably a majority, of crimes don't get investigated at all. They're bike thefts and pickpocketings and cutpursings and such, committed by colorful street urchins who flee through fish markets and across rooftops, pursued by wheezing bobbies and men in bowlers shaking their umbrellas and shouting "Stop! Thief!" The cops choose not to devote resources to trying to solve them.

Once in a while (once per every thousand CCTV cameras), a crime occurs that is worth investigating and has some relevant CCTV footage.

Since murder is a crime to which (I hope) the cops devote the greatest amount of all resources, CCTV is among them. So 70 percent of solved murders involve CCTV.

If they announced that only one in every thousand phone calls made by the police leads to a solved crime, you might say "Wow, the cops have to follow up a lot of bum leads." But in and of itself it wouldn't be a case against letting the cops have phones.

|8.25.09 @ 12:31AM|#

'...bike thefts and pickpocketings and cutpursings and such, committed by colorful street urchins who flee through fish markets and across rooftops, pursued by wheezing bobbies and men in bowlers shaking their umbrellas and shouting "Stop! Thief!"'

Thank you Mr. Cavanaugh for the rich imagery of 'Oliver Twist". Pining for the "simpler Times"? :-)

Elemenope|8.25.09 @ 12:33AM|#

I don't know that cameras in public places give the gov't significantly more power than the ability to test for fingerprints or DNA gives them. They can't pore over every detail on video any more than they can collect *all* fingerprints or *all* the bits of DNA you shed.

Give it time.

Warty|8.25.09 @ 12:49AM|#

One nice touch in District 9 was that the surveillance footage was mostly useless.

|8.25.09 @ 1:02AM|#

CCTV is useless unless you know CPR


Woman: YOU SAVED HER! Where did you learn CPR?

Quagmire: What's CPR?

Giggity Goo!

*|8.25.09 @ 7:35AM|#

"It creates a huge intrusion on privacy"

How so? Are they in people's homes as well?
How can one expect "privacy" while walking down a public street?

Abdul|8.25.09 @ 7:47AM|#

Maybe more crimes would be solved if they took all the CCTV footage, sped it up and played "Yakety Sax"* over it.

Well, maybe more crimes wouldn't be solved, but it would be hilarious.




* "the Benny Hill theme"

Marian Kechlibar|8.25.09 @ 8:20AM|#

How can one expect "privacy" while walking down a public street?

Of course you can. For example, facts like where are you going and whom do you meet are no one's business but yours.

With a network of CCTV cameras, it is much easier to follow you around, than, say, with a crew of professional "tails".

Xeones|8.25.09 @ 8:32AM|#

You know what would make me really like Surveillance Cameras? If ANYONE could access and view them at any time.

I think you can, with the proper Freedom of Information Request form, or whatever the Limey equivalent is. There was a band a couple years ago that recorded their first music video entirely on London's security cameras.

|8.25.09 @ 8:48AM|#

I dated a few cougars in my day and loved it. No drama, great sex and I was not paying for everything all the time. It was really chill. Try this out:
**== Cougarster.com ==**
But let me tell all you young guys that want a cougar. eat your veggies and hit the gym cause they will ware you out..~

Rich|8.25.09 @ 8:56AM|#

How can one expect "privacy" while walking down a public street?

Are you OK with me following you and recording your actions? A lotta guys might consider that stalking/harrassment.

Michael Ejercito|8.25.09 @ 11:44AM|#

Are you OK with me following you and recording your actions? A lotta guys might consider that stalking/harrassment.

Cameras are a passive form of surveillance, and are thus much less intrusive.

Rich|8.25.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Cameras are a passive form of surveillance, and are thus much less intrusive.

Oh, I don't know about that. The cameras are always in your face, and controllable -- or so the Watchers would have you believe.

|8.25.09 @ 2:03PM|#

"""Some data on recent London crime rates here, which give some small weight to the notion of deterrent effect, even if not solving of crimes that do happen:"""

Does it? Just because there is a reduction doesn't mean the cameras are the reason.

"""How can one expect "privacy" while walking down a public street?"""

Ask Obama, he's making the claim that reporters should respect his family's privacy while they are running around on public street during their vacation.

T|8.25.09 @ 3:18PM|#

Cameras are a passive form of surveillance, and are thus much less intrusive.

And besides, if you're not doing anything wrong, why should you care?

coyote1284|8.26.09 @ 10:31AM|#

That's just evidence that less crimes occur *because* the cameras are there. (/sarcasm)

[e-mail]|9.4.09 @ 2:35AM|#

Here is a great chance to drive a large number of targeted visitors to your blogs and websites for free.

Submit your websites, blogs, videos to http://www.zillionsb.com and get 1000s of visitors everyday for free. It also helps your websites/blogs gain valuable backlinks.

Let the other bloggers cast their votes to push your posts up for a greater visibility. Enjoy free huge traffic to your sites.

Thanks

Sara

http://www.zillionsb.com

arizona security systems|11.9.09 @ 5:56AM|#

I agree, now a days every home and apartment should be equipped with a monitored surveillance camera.