How useful are surveillance cameras in fighting urban crime?

[drydem]

Keywords: Surveillance Security Public-Space Street Cameras City Urban
Crime

Background:
In the past - in Washington DC - surveillance camera have
been used in retail, transportation centers, government buildings,
hotels, banks, certain office buildings, some multe-unit
residential buildings, and certain major highway intersections.
In recent times, Washington DC's government has expanded
into using public space security camera networks [1][2]
However, a British report now casts doubts as to the
actual usefulness of surveillance camera in fighting crime
in urban public spaces.[3]

Question:
Is there a limit to the usefulness of surveillance cameras
with respect to fighting crime in urban areas?
If so what are these limitations?


Sources/citation/reference:

[1]
D.C. Considering More Police Cameras
-- London Bombings Prompt New Debate on Surveillance of Public Places
Eric M. Weiss. Washington Post. Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page B01
excerpts:
Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said yesterday that his administration
will look into increasing the use of surveillance cameras in the
District, as part of a study of lessons from last week's terrorist
bombings in London.
The D.C. police department has 14 such cameras, most of them in the
downtown area, that feed images to a high-tech operations center.
Williams said he would like to see them turned on and monitored more
often, and he also proposed adding cameras to neighborhoods, parks,
recreation centers and commercial areas throughout the city.

[2]
Neighborhood Surveillance Cameras Installed Around D.C.
AP. WTOP 103.8FM News. August 30, 2006 - 5:01am
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=897178

WASHINGTON - D.C. police are installing a dozen surveillance cameras
in city neighborhoods. The cameras were authorized in the emergency
crime legislation passed by the D.C. Council earlier this summer.
Police say officers won't usually be monitoring them in real time, but
will watch replays of the video they record while investigating
crimes. Installation began Monday and is expected to be completed by
the end of the week.
Chief Charles Ramsey chose the locations of the cameras based on calls
for service, reported crimes and recommendations and requests from the
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and other neighborhood groups.
Under the crime law, the cameras can be used for the 90-day crime
emergency, but any further use requires further action by the
council.
The new cameras will be at the following locations:

1200 block of Congress Street, SE (by 13th Place, SE)
2400-2500 blocks of Elvans Road, SE (by the cul-de-sac in the 2500
block)
1200 block of Meigs Place, NE (close to Montello Avenue, NE)
2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE (by 21st Street, NE)
1700 block of Randolph Road, NE (by Lincoln Road, NE)
1400 block of 7th Street, NW (by O Street, NW)
1400 block of R Street, NW (by Johnson Avenue, NW)
3330 block of Georgia Avenue, NW (by Morton Street, NW)
2400 block of 18th Street, NW (north of Belmont Street, NW, across
from alley)
100 block of M Street, NW (by First Place, NW)
3700 block of Georgia Avenue, NW (at New Hampshire Avenue, NW)
400 block of Kennedy Street, NW (by 5th Street, NW)

[3]
Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved
By Justin Davenport, Evening Standard 19.09.07
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do

London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million,
figures show today.

But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and
controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast
doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the
proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely
to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those
with hardly any.

In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a
record of solving crime that is below average.

The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London
Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.

Dee Doocey, the Lib-Dems' policing spokeswoman, said: "These figures
suggest there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a
better crime clear-up rate.

"We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the
region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear
if some of that money would not have been better spent on police
officers.

"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in
preventing or detecting crime.

"Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is
time we engaged in an open debate about the role of cameras in London
today."

The figures show:

· There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with
Home Office grants totalling about £200million.

· Hackney has the most cameras - 1,484 - and has a better-than-average
clearup rate of 22.2 per cent.

· Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and
Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the
average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.

· By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and
Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have
clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.

· Police in Sutton have one of the highest clear-ups with 25 per
cent.

· Brent police have the highest clear-up rate, with 25.9 per cent of
crimes solved in 2006-07, even though the borough has only 164
cameras.

The figures appear to confirm earlier studies which have thrown doubt
on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras.

A report by the criminal justice charity Nacro in 2002 concluded that
the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting,
which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent.

Scotland Yard is trying to improve its track record on the use of CCTV
and has set up a special unit which collects and circulates CCTV
images of criminals.

A pilot project is running in Southwark and Lambeth and is expected to
be rolled out across the capital.

The figures only include state-funded cameras.

The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London
Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly
higher.

[Pat]

Post by drydem
Keywords: Surveillance Security Public-Space Street Cameras City Urban
Crime
In the past - in Washington DC - surveillance camera have
been used in retail, transportation centers, government buildings,
hotels, banks, certain office buildings, some multe-unit
residential buildings, and certain major highway intersections.
In recent times, Washington DC's government has expanded
into using public space security camera networks [1][2]
However, a British report now casts doubts as to the
actual usefulness of surveillance camera in fighting crime
in urban public spaces.[3]
Is there a limit to the usefulness of surveillance cameras
with respect to fighting crime in urban areas?
If so what are these limitations?
[1]
D.C. Considering More Police Cameras
-- London Bombings Prompt New Debate on Surveillance of Public Places
Eric M. Weiss. Washington Post. Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page B01
Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said yesterday that his administration
will look into increasing the use of surveillance cameras in the
District, as part of a study of lessons from last week's terrorist
bombings in London.
The D.C. police department has 14 such cameras, most of them in the
downtown area, that feed images to a high-tech operations center.
Williams said he would like to see them turned on and monitored more
often, and he also proposed adding cameras to neighborhoods, parks,
recreation centers and commercial areas throughout the city.
[2]
Neighborhood Surveillance Cameras Installed Around D.C.
AP. WTOP 103.8FM News. August 30, 2006 - 5:01amhttp://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=897178
WASHINGTON - D.C. police are installing a dozen surveillance cameras
in city neighborhoods. The cameras were authorized in the emergency
crime legislation passed by the D.C. Council earlier this summer.
Police say officers won't usually be monitoring them in real time, but
will watch replays of the video they record while investigating
crimes. Installation began Monday and is expected to be completed by
the end of the week.
Chief Charles Ramsey chose the locations of the cameras based on calls
for service, reported crimes and recommendations and requests from the
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and other neighborhood groups.
Under the crime law, the cameras can be used for the 90-day crime
emergency, but any further use requires further action by the
council.
1200 block of Congress Street, SE (by 13th Place, SE)
2400-2500 blocks of Elvans Road, SE (by the cul-de-sac in the 2500
block)
1200 block of Meigs Place, NE (close to Montello Avenue, NE)
2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE (by 21st Street, NE)
1700 block of Randolph Road, NE (by Lincoln Road, NE)
1400 block of 7th Street, NW (by O Street, NW)
1400 block of R Street, NW (by Johnson Avenue, NW)
3330 block of Georgia Avenue, NW (by Morton Street, NW)
2400 block of 18th Street, NW (north of Belmont Street, NW, across
from alley)
100 block of M Street, NW (by First Place, NW)
3700 block of Georgia Avenue, NW (at New Hampshire Avenue, NW)
400 block of Kennedy Street, NW (by 5th Street, NW)
[3]
Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved
By Justin Davenport, Evening Standard 19.09.07http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+t...
London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million,
figures show today.
But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and
controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast
doubt on its ability to help solve crime.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the
proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely
to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those
with hardly any.
In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a
record of solving crime that is below average.
The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London
Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.
Dee Doocey, the Lib-Dems' policing spokeswoman, said: "These figures
suggest there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a
better crime clear-up rate.
"We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the
region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear
if some of that money would not have been better spent on police
officers.
"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in
preventing or detecting crime.
"Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is
time we engaged in an open debate about the role of cameras in London
today."
· There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with
Home Office grants totalling about £200million.
· Hackney has the most cameras - 1,484 - and has a better-than-average
clearup rate of 22.2 per cent.
· Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and
Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the
average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.
· By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and
Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have
clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.
· Police in Sutton have one of the highest clear-ups with 25 per
cent.
· Brent police have the highest clear-up rate, with 25.9 per cent of
crimes solved in 2006-07, even though the borough has only 164
cameras.
The figures appear to confirm earlier studies which have thrown doubt
on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras.
A report by the criminal justice charity Nacro in 2002 concluded that
the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting,
which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent.
Scotland Yard is trying to improve its track record on the use of CCTV
and has set up a special unit which collects and circulates CCTV
images of criminals.
A pilot project is running in Southwark and Lambeth and is expected to
be rolled out across the capital.
The figures only include state-funded cameras.
The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London
Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly
higher.

Obviously there are more factors in crime solving than just having
camera. It may be that communities that install cameras are doing so
because they've cut other policing practices, have high poverty, or
other factors.

Here are two other examples to consider. Inside of casinos, there's
lots of people, lots of money, and lots of cameras. There is little
crime. But the cameras are obvious and the security is everywhere.
Plus you know the cameras are being watched, they are not just there
recording images. So in casinos they are part of a overall security
system that deters crime -- but the system is expensive.

In a convenience store or liquor store, they don't have such a
detering effect because people can easily where masks, the people
robbing them might have "issues", and the group robbing them is more
"desperate" (for lack of a better word). So the cameras don't have as
large of a deterring effect. But they would if you had security
guards making everyone take off their masks before entering the store,
etc.

So cameras might help as part of a system, but by themselves they are
just one part of a large puzzle.

[Jack May]

Post by drydem
Keywords: Surveillance Security Public-Space Street Cameras City Urban
Is there a limit to the usefulness of surveillance cameras
with respect to fighting crime in urban areas?
If so what are these limitations?

The biggest limitation is that the people running the cameras are asleep or
zoned out. Chicago in the process of trying much higher tech cameras that
will automatically detect and alert when something is happening that should
be looked at and possibly require action.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_hi_te/chicago_security_system;_ylt=AjxEtKdXm3m.SVN8obr4Snas0NUE

[drydem]

Post by drydem
Keywords: Surveillance Security Public-Space Street Cameras City Urban
Crime
In the past - in Washington DC - surveillance camera have
been used in retail, transportation centers, government buildings,
hotels, banks, certain office buildings, some multe-unit
residential buildings, and certain major highway intersections.
In recent times, Washington DC's government has expanded
into using public space security camera networks [1][2]
However, a British report now casts doubts as to the
actual usefulness of surveillance camera in fighting crime
in urban public spaces.[3]
Is there a limit to the usefulness of surveillance cameras
with respect to fighting crime in urban areas?
If so what are these limitations?
[1]
D.C. Considering More Police Cameras
-- London Bombings Prompt New Debate on Surveillance of Public Places
Eric M. Weiss. Washington Post. Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page B01
Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said yesterday that his administration
will look into increasing the use of surveillance cameras in the
District, as part of a study of lessons from last week's terrorist
bombings in London.
The D.C. police department has 14 such cameras, most of them in the
downtown area, that feed images to a high-tech operations center.
Williams said he would like to see them turned on and monitored more
often, and he also proposed adding cameras to neighborhoods, parks,
recreation centers and commercial areas throughout the city.
[2]
Neighborhood Surveillance Cameras Installed Around D.C.
AP. WTOP 103.8FM News. August 30, 2006 - 5:01amhttp://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=897178
WASHINGTON - D.C. police are installing a dozen surveillance cameras
in city neighborhoods. The cameras were authorized in the emergency
crime legislation passed by the D.C. Council earlier this summer.
Police say officers won't usually be monitoring them in real time, but
will watch replays of the video they record while investigating
crimes. Installation began Monday and is expected to be completed by
the end of the week.
Chief Charles Ramsey chose the locations of the cameras based on calls
for service, reported crimes and recommendations and requests from the
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and other neighborhood groups.
Under the crime law, the cameras can be used for the 90-day crime
emergency, but any further use requires further action by the
council.
1200 block of Congress Street, SE (by 13th Place, SE)
2400-2500 blocks of Elvans Road, SE (by the cul-de-sac in the 2500
block)
1200 block of Meigs Place, NE (close to Montello Avenue, NE)
2000 block of Maryland Avenue, NE (by 21st Street, NE)
1700 block of Randolph Road, NE (by Lincoln Road, NE)
1400 block of 7th Street, NW (by O Street, NW)
1400 block of R Street, NW (by Johnson Avenue, NW)
3330 block of Georgia Avenue, NW (by Morton Street, NW)
2400 block of 18th Street, NW (north of Belmont Street, NW, across
from alley)
100 block of M Street, NW (by First Place, NW)
3700 block of Georgia Avenue, NW (at New Hampshire Avenue, NW)
400 block of Kennedy Street, NW (by 5th Street, NW)
[3]
Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved
By Justin Davenport, Evening Standard 19.09.07http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+t...
London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million,
figures show today.
But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and
controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast
doubt on its ability to help solve crime.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the
proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely
to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those
with hardly any.
In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a
record of solving crime that is below average.
The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London
Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.
Dee Doocey, the Lib-Dems' policing spokeswoman, said: "These figures
suggest there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a
better crime clear-up rate.
"We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the
region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear
if some of that money would not have been better spent on police
officers.
"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in
preventing or detecting crime.
"Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is
time we engaged in an open debate about the role of cameras in London
today."
· There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with
Home Office grants totalling about £200million.
· Hackney has the most cameras - 1,484 - and has a better-than-average
clearup rate of 22.2 per cent.
· Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and
Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the
average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.
· By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and
Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have
clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.
· Police in Sutton have one of the highest clear-ups with 25 per
cent.
· Brent police have the highest clear-up rate, with 25.9 per cent of
crimes solved in 2006-07, even though the borough has only 164
cameras.
The figures appear to confirm earlier studies which have thrown doubt
on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras.
A report by the criminal justice charity Nacro in 2002 concluded that
the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting,
which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent.
Scotland Yard is trying to improve its track record on the use of CCTV
and has set up a special unit which collects and circulates CCTV
images of criminals.
A pilot project is running in Southwark and Lambeth and is expected to
be rolled out across the capital.
The figures only include state-funded cameras.
The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London
Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly
higher.

Chicago's smart surveillance cameras

composite summary:
The city of Chicago will be installing a new smart
video surveillance system made by IBM. Chicago
already has security cameras that recognize gunshot,
point towards the source of the gunshot, and place
a 911 call. The new smart cameras analyzes the
images in real time. The pilot program will use
both existing cameras and new cameras. It will
be run by Chicago's Office of Emergency
management and communication. Firetide, Inc. will
provide the wireless networking support for the
cameras. Chicago already has 2,250 cameras in its
"Homeland Security Grid," which the Department
of Homeland Security helped finance with a
$5.1 million grant. DHS is gave an additional
$48 Million grant to Chicago to add additional
cameras during 2006-2007. Chicago will monitor
the cameras with a $43 million operations center.
North Chicago has four Sony Surveillance cameras
which are marked with a blue light to indicate
its presence. The cameras can be can be focused
remoted in squad cars or at the command center.


sources
========
Chicago video surveillance gets smarter
DON BABWIN, Associated Press Sept 27 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_re_us/chicago_security_system

More Cities Deploy Camera Surveillance Systems with Federal Grant
Money
EPIC | May 12, 2005
http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/cameras_cities_deploy_surveillance_fed_grants.htm

Smart Cameras in North Chicago
June 22 ,2007
http://www.rajivshah.com/camera/archives/2007/06/
http://www.rajivshah.com/camera/archives/chicago/

Cameras Survey Chicago's toughest blocks,
but do they reduce crime?
Demian Bulwa, San Francisco Chronicle. Mon Sept 24 2007
http://sfgate.com//cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/24/MNACSA80Q.DTL&feed=rss.news