I spy with my little eye…surveillance cameras
I spy with my little eye…Something that begins with “S.” Can you guess what it is?
In today’s D&C, this article caught my eye, pun intended:
Mayor Robert Duffy wants to spend $1 million over the next five years on police surveillance cameras — enough to buy more than 40 additional units, adding to the 25 that should start going up on troubled city streets in June.
I admire a leader who wants to take bold steps and fight crime but I’m concerned about the actual effectiveness of surveillance cameras, and their impact on privacy rights. According to the ACLU, surveillance cameras are not effective in deterring crime but they are implicit in creating a false sense of security where they are installed and they do diminish privacy rights.
Other studies have found that improved lighting on city streets reduces crime by 20 percent. That’s a measurable, verifiable crime reduction that does not infringe upon privacy.
From an NBC report in San Francisco in 2007:
The 64 cameras already in use have a price tag of $500,000, Ballard said. The city will be installing 25 new cameras in 2008.
Data collected from surveillance cameras has been used in at least six investigations, Ballard said. One arrest has been made definitively because of the cameras.
“We believe the program is working,” Ballard said.
Wow, one arrest for $500,000 spent on cameras. That’s a fairly expensive arrest.
Cameras are reactive versus proactive. Wear a hoodie and what good will these cameras do, other than record some hooded figure, languishing in the shadows (where are those lights again?) stepping out for a second to be recorded in the act but not stopped from committing the crime? I feel safer already.
So, what was it that I spied with my little eye, something beginning with “S”? Spin. The false sense of security created by cameras, the lack of verifiable effectiveness, the expense-to-crime reduction ratio, all these factors are out there, being ignored. That is spin. We can all spy that.
While I understand the ACLU’s view regarding potential privacy issues with municipal surveillance cameras, I would like to point out that the Ontario province of Canada has deployed a terrific and very successful implementation of video surveillance that utilizes an obfuscation technology that will “mask” the facial features of a subject until the image is “decrypted” by authorized law enforcement personnel. In combination with a srong transmission encryption algorithm that prevents hijacking, the “masking” ensures that the identity of the “suspect” cannot be determined by anyone who is not authorized to do. As well, the image storage in each camera system, automatically overwrites every 72 hours.
In addition, the Province of Ontario has published statistics that detail how the use of such technology has discouraged crime in the geographies where it has been implemented.
The Canadian approach is definitely something that the Duffy Administration should be considering.
I hear you and I’m undecided on pervasive use of cameras and surveillance. . There may be some merit and the technology sounds “cool” but…
“until the image is “decrypted” by authorized law enforcement personnel” Like the 911 lady who was illegally looking up information? Some how I don’t think this stuff runs as smoothly as it doesn’t on the TV show “24″.
The thing about the constitution is that is applies equally to everyone - those committing a criminal act and those who are not. Giving up personal rights and freedoms like the one that says the government will stay out of my business without a warrant is important to me. Giving up rights does not make you any freer or more secure in my opinion.
But this is about actually solving the problem.
Besides - What proactive solutions that solve crime before it starts can be purchased for $ 1 million dollars.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks for the ideas Chris. I will definitely check them out.
Really nice post.
The best bit was that Cameras are reactive vs proactive.
Apparently San Francisco does have issues with Cameras here is a link.
I loved the line Mayor Gavin Newsome said about “making residents feel safer” even though the data show the cameras are not actually preventing crime. Feeling safe is important but once you have data indicating you are not actually safer with surveillance cameras, it is strange to continue down that path.
Instead of creating a survelliance society in which more and more policing of conduct is the norm, we should be thinking about ways to create a better society for all.
[...] chips in our passports, cameras on the corner and now, big brother is trying to take control of our immune systems. Sorry, but that’s just [...]