After all...the innocent have nothing to fear...because the camera never lies?
3. CCTV works?
There is often very little question about whether is does work or what this actually means in practice. Few schemes are tested using methodologically sound research. Many positive pronouncements about CCTV systems are based upon a few months worth of police statistics, with no consideration of seasonal variations, let alone whether the stats bear any resemblance to the reality of the situation. We need to also consider what may potentially happen in those nearby areas not covered by the cameras. Yet a credible measure of the displacement of this crime simply hasn’t been invented yet!
But... crime programmes such as Crime beat...eye spy...caught in the act... should alert us to the fact that people still do commit crimes despite the presence of cameras!
In research on the Lincoln scheme: nearly 50% of participants asked, thought that the police would be ‘on the scene in a matter of minutes’ if anything happened.
Dawson (1994 p13 in New Statesman and Society 28/1/94) describes how CCTV changes police practices. CCTV replaced van of police officers in Airdrie city centre...response time changed from immediate to about 6 minutes. The feeling was that you could get a ‘good’ beating before the police arrived.
Reality of 24 hour coverage:
King Lynn Scheme: 60 cameras connected to 23 monitors, 15 split screen. (Brown 1995 p49)
Think about how an operator can watch all of the screens, all of the time.
But we could argue that even if operators do not spot a crime, these are still caught on video and the evidence can be used in court….
However in the Kings Lynn Scheme: in a 32 month period there were only three cases that used the tapes to identify the subject. On average CCTV only resulted in 3 arrests a month, many of which included littering and urinating in the street. In the vast majority of cases when tape reviews were requested, ‘nothing of particular use’ had been picked up by the cameras. (Brown 1995 p53)
This is not unusual.
And if the operators are not watching an incident, it is invariably recorded in time lapse mode with no clear focus on the subject. This is why most of the CCTV footage that we see on programmes such as Crimewatch is blurred and of poor quality. Video enhancement for pictures that are potentially going to be used for the purpose of evidence is also highly problematic, because it may change the appearance of the subject, and for this reason is not usually undertaken.
The problems of public expectations?
‘You feel a lot safer especially walking home as I do in the late evening and you know that someone is watching if anything may happen and would be at the scene in a matter of minutes’ (Lincoln City centre retailer).
Problem:....you can’t have cameras everywhere?
‘The system has blind spots. Our offices were burgled by thieves who gained access at a point not covered by the cameras. (Lincoln City centre retailer)
What if it appears to fail?
‘Two large windows have been smashed in Guildhall street in the last month, are there enough people monitoring the system at the right times?’ (Lincoln City centre retailer)
The problem is that you have a contradiction that is not easy to resolve. You need the potential ‘criminals’ to believe that it is all encompassing, but you need the ‘public’ to be realistic about what it can achieve. However… potential ‘criminals’ are members of the ‘public’ too!!!
Assumption: CCTV is accountable and people are not concerned about civil libs....
The right of privacy is pitched against ‘the right to walk down the street in safety’.
The innocent have nothing to fear because the camera never lies……
But there is no mandatory control on using CCTV cameras, and only voluntary codes of practice. There are many cameras in the hands of private security with no accountability.
‘We found examples of employees with what can only be described as horrendous previous convictions….Real and potential abuses of private security status are much higher than previously envisaged…A lot of companies say that they are police approved, but that’s a myth. No companies are approved or vetted by us…’ (Police spokesman in Beck and Willis 1995 p129)
Private surveillance by CCTV may give many unregulated individuals and agencies power in which they can decide who deserves to be watched…which is based upon their own prejudices and ideas about what is ‘normal behaviour’, and who are acceptable people for the situation.
Norris and Armstrong (1999)
Operators, proportionally watched black people more, and had a tendency to watch attractive women for voyeuristic reasons. Particular modes of dress also seemed worth watching...
‘puffer coats (ski-style fashion), track suit bottoms, designer training shoes, baseball caps (ponytail hairstyles only compounded suspicion) and anything that may conceal the head, be it a woolly hat, hood or cap and football shirts or supporter paraphernalia.’ (Norris & Armstrong 1999 p120; The maximum surveillance society)
This is backed up by other researchers:
Sparks identified “a heavy concentration on the exclusion of ‘undesirable’ young people” (Cited in Graham et al 1996:5-6). Evans found that black males tended to feel excluded from shopping malls because they were subject to intense surveillance from security guards. A typical comment found in control rooms was...“What’s that guy with dreadlocks going into watches of Switzerland for?” (ibid:20)
It appears to be acceptable to exclude undesirables. See this comment from Wolverhampton local consultative committee:
“Large groups of young single people, simply assemble in places that happen to catch their fancy. Their mere presence is a nuisance to people who want to use the streets and shopping centres in a more conventional way...” (Local Consultative committee, Wolverhampton in Graham et al 1996:20)
One persons group of friends is perhaps another’s ‘nuisance’?…who decides…and is this acceptable grounds for excluding some groups??
“Periodically we carry out a high profile blitz on undesirables. This effectively moves them on to somebody else’s area of responsibility.”…..and…..“Most groups are well known to us. They are speedily identified on entry to the centre and kept on the move.” (Beck and Willis 1995:118)
Implication of this might be that….
CCTV... “may help transform the public and democratic nature of public spaces into ‘fortressed’ commercial ghettos where access is based not on the notion of rights as citizens but on arbitrary visual judgements about whether people ‘belong’ in such commercial spaces.” (Graham et al 1996:26)
In a society dominated by consumerism:
“...Those with money to spend are made to feel welcome. The consumer spender is a welcome guest in the pleasure dome. On the other hand, those that do not conform to the acceptable stereotype - the ‘new marginals’ are increasingly being told...that they are not welcome being .......’denied access, based upon the flimsiest of judgements and reasoning by security guards (private armies who ensure that retailers conform and shoppers behave.(Shields 1992 cited in Beck & Willis 1995:119-120)
But the ‘innocent’, whoever they are, have nothing to fear because the camera never lies:
Beck and Willis (1995) Crime and Security: Managing the risk to safe shopping. Perpetuity Press. Leicester.
Brown, B. (1995) CCTV in Town Centres; 3 case studies. Crime detection and prevention series: Police Research Group.
Dawson, T (1994) ‘Framing the villains’ in , T (1994) ‘Framing the villains’ in New Statesman and Society 28/1/94
Graham, Brooks & Heery (1996) Towns on the Television: Closed Circuit TV In British Towns and Cities. Paper prepared for conference on CCTV, Surveillance and Social Control, at University of Hull.
Groombridge, N. & K. Murji (1994) ‘As easy as AB and CCTV?’ in Policing Vol.10 No.4 Winter.
Honess & Charman (1992) Closed Circuit Television in Public Places: Its acceptability and perceived effectiveness. London: Home Office Police Department.
Norris, C. G. Armstrong & J. Moran (eds) (1998) Closed circuit TV and Social Control Aldershot, Ashgate.
Norris, C. & G Armstrong (1999) The maximum surveillance society London. Berg.
