 |
| (c) Paul Vlaar |
Although my research is
far from scientific, I am attempting to be objective by using the following
documents based on their appearance at the top of this search. The Telegraph
article is here and The Guardian article here. The House of Commons briefing note
refers to this NACRO report, this Campbell Collaboration review and this Gill et al study. The NACRO report refers to the reasoning behind the use of CCTV,
whilst the latter two studies have been written with the support of the Home
Office. Therefore, none of these documents have been written from an anti-CCTV
stance.
According to NACRO:
The mechanisms under which CCTV aims to reduce crime are based upon the following (largely simplistic) assumptions:
1 Deterrence. The potential offender becomes aware of the presence of CCTV, assesses the risks of offending in this location to outweigh the benefits and chooses either not to offend or to offend elsewhere.
2 Efficient deployment. CCTV cameras allow those monitoring the scene to determine whether police assistance is required. This ensures that police resources are called upon only when necessary.
3 Self discipline.
By potential victims. They are reminded of the ‘risk’ of crime, therefore altering their behaviour accordingly.
By potential offenders. Through a process similar to that described by Foucault in his discussion of Bentham’s Panopticon, the threat of potential surveillance (whether the cameras are actually being monitored may be irrelevant) acts to produce a self discipline in which individuals police their own behaviour...the CCTV camera may produce a self-discipline through fear of surveillance, whether real or imagined.
4 Presence of a capable guardian. The ‘Routine Activity Theory’ suggests that for a crime to be committed there must be a motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian. Any act that prevents the convergence of these elements will reduce the likelihood of a crime taking place. CCTV, as a capable guardian, may help to reduce crime.
5 Detection. CCTV cameras capture images of offences taking place. In some cases this may lead to punishment and the removal of the offenders’ ability to offend (either due to incarceration, or increased monitoring and supervision)...
The Campbell Collaboration
drew the following conclusions on the effectives of CCTV:
Exactly what the optimal circumstances are for effective use of CCTV schemes is not entirely clear at present, and this needs to be established by future evaluation research (see below). But it is important to note that the success of the CCTV schemes in car parks was mostly limited to a reduction in vehicle crimes (the only crime type measured in 5 of the 6 schemes) and camera coverage was high for those evaluations that reported on it. In the national British evaluation of the effectiveness of CCTV, Farrington (2007b) found that effectiveness was significantly correlated with the degree of coverage of the CCTV cameras, which was greatest in car parks. Furthermore, all 6 car park schemes included other interventions, such as improved lighting and security guards. It is plausible to suggest that CCTV schemes with high coverage and other interventions and targeted on vehicle crimes are effective.
Conversely, the evaluations of CCTV schemes in city and town centers and public housing measured a much larger range of crime types and only a small number of studies involved other interventions. These CCTV schemes, as well as those focused on public transport, did not have a significant effect on crime.Gill et al concluded:
Whilst most systems revealed little overall effect on crime levels, there were a number of small-scale impacts that were explored. Some of these represent successes, which are worthy of comment...However, it is important to reiterate that few results were statistically significant, and most could be explained by random variations in crime, or other confounding factors. Overall, just two schemes, City Outskirts and Hawkeye, can be said to have experienced a statistically significant reduction in recorded crime relative to the control
area, and only in the latter it is plausible that the role of CCTV was a significant factor in this reduction...
On the other hand, where there were initial suggestions of success, any measured change in crime following CCTV installation could not always be attributed to CCTV once confounding factors and random fluctuations were taken into account...
Overall, the impact of CCTV has been variable. Elsewhere (Gill et al, 2005) we have emphasised the variety of issues that impacts on CCTV working. In short, it is important to remember that the characteristics of areas and the crime problems generated in them varies considerably, and the suitability of CCTV will depend, at the very least, on the nature of those problems, the presence of other measures, and the commitment and skills of management and staff to making CCTV work. The belief that CCTV alone can counter complex social problems is unrealistic in the extreme. At best CCTV can work alongside other measures to generate some changes, but it is no easy panacea, and there is a lot still to be learnt about how to use it to best effect.Overall then, there is little causal evidence to sustain the continued blanket use of CCTV, with many voices are now calling for CCTV to be used in a more targeted manner.
In terms of SCP, both RCT and RAT lack evidence that might suggest that either theory is valid. Although many of the findings have considered alternative approaches to improve the effectiveness of CCTV, such as its targeted use, none have questioned whether CCTV can ever be an effective crime prevention option in today's society.
My
article on Letwin and surveillance referred to YouTube and its omnipresence; a massive blurring of the
boundary between private and public. The
vast majority of PCs and laptops today come equipped with a camera, thereby allowing the
user to upload and distribute even the most personal of moving pictures of
themselves for mass public consumption. Furthermore, reality TV has pervaded
the public consciousness for well over a decade. The use of CCTV and CCTV-like
images have fuelled a variety of TV programmes, from the likes of Big Brother
to the CSI franchise. The technological advances in digital photography and
camcorders, from the rise of the digital camera to the preponderance of the
camera/smart phone see people click-clicking and shooting everywhere. Whether
we be in public, or in private, cameras are ready to capture our acts. The use
of cameras has become a cultural norm.
In this regard, I note Groombridge’s paper, “Crime control or crime culture TV”, in which he looks at sociological theories of surveillance and media and film studies (predominantly, psychoanalytical, feminist) perspectives on gazing and being gazed at. Of particular interest to this article is Groombridge’s notion of an ‘omnicon’.
In this regard, I note Groombridge’s paper, “Crime control or crime culture TV”, in which he looks at sociological theories of surveillance and media and film studies (predominantly, psychoanalytical, feminist) perspectives on gazing and being gazed at. Of particular interest to this article is Groombridge’s notion of an ‘omnicon’.
Perhaps I am describing an 'omnicon' where all watch, or might potentially, watch all. CCTV would then only be objectionable for being closed and our resistance should be aimed at cameras and systems which are not fully democratic.
 |
| (c) oogiboig |
Critics from a human rights perspective
often refer to our ‘surveillance society’, and the breaches of these rights
from the likes of CCTV. I think that this misses the point. Theoretical ideas
of surveillance, from Bentham to Foucault, imply that we are being watched but
that we do not know it for sure, and so regulate ourselves in case. The term
'surveillance' hints at the idea of being watched from afar, undercover, almost
paparazzi-like. However, as I have argued above, cameras have become a social
norm by which people document their lives. For me, we are immersed in, and we
take part in, a ‘surveillance society.’ The difference is that this is about accessibility, and I
consider that there is an ‘accessible surveillance society’ and an
‘inaccessible surveillance society.’
Certain types of ‘inaccessible surveillance society’ are forms of
concern. For example, I know that the data that I hand over to the likes of
Amazon when I purchase goods from their site are being used to create a virtual
facsimile of the type of person that I am. I do not have access to this
facsimile, nor do I see the physical evidence of where my personal data is
stored. It is not just online that I worry about an ‘inaccessible surveillance
society.’ Other physical surveillance includes ideas of secret police, such as
the KGB, or even undercover
police. These are the worrying aspects of a ‘surveillance society.’
That said, an ‘inaccessible surveillance society’ need not be
exclusively worrisome. For example, we do not see boundaries as they are
symbolic. Therefore, changes to rules and laws are abstract means of effecting
changes for the better (not always, granted), but at least the public are able
to monitor them even though they do not own them.
The paradox of cameras and their use in surveillance over the last
couple of decades, is that their prevalence and accessibility to the state and
the public, has led to them becoming a part of the cultural fabric. They have
become background music, thereby rendering them invisible. And that was not the
purpose envisaged in terms of crime prevention. Which brings me round to
my theory, ‘surveillance accessibility theory’ (SAT); when states use
surveillance techniques that are equally accessible to the general public, that
these same mechanisms are rendered less effective in their deterrence of crime,
precisely because of their prevalence. We are now living in the time of an
'omnicon.'
Recent international news items appear to support this theory. The camera phone
footage/stills of Gaddafi’s dead body spread, suggest that his death was not as
originally claimed by the NTC. Given that
the reasons for Gaddafi’s death are at least vague, it is entirely possible
that a brutal crime was committed in full sight of a camera. The
killing of Wang Yue in Guangdong province, China
Back in the UK UK
The government
appears to be relying solely on an argument for the use of CCTV cameras as being
necessary for detection. CCTV
is actively being promoted as being the ideal mechanism for catching those
involved in the UK riots. Yet, just a few years ago, partners in
government, the
Liberal-Democrats, used the freedom of information act to obtain information
that suggested that approximately 80% of crimes went unsolved, despite the
widespread use of CCTV.
It is quite
startling that the government seem to have scaled back on the assumptions that
underpin the reasons for the use of CCTV (see NACRO above). The government,
then, appears to have little faith in ideas of CCTV as an effective deterrent,
guardian or means of disciplining selves. CCTV may yet come to de deployed more
efficiently, as put forward by the Home Office reports referred to above, but
it has not been effective as yet.
There are
various reports on public attitude surveys towards CCTV, and the notion that it
makes the public feel safe. CCTV was originally supposed to deter criminals,
yet I am unable to find any qualitative evidence that might explain whether any
prisoners considered CCTV in the commission of their crime, and if they had,
why they had still chosen to go ahead with their crime. Research into prisoners
thoughts on CCTV may open up further understandings of the (in)effectiveness of
CCTV, and may build on SAT.
Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?
