Surveillance Cameras In London Not Very Effective At Solving Crime

from the seems-like-a-problem dept

Defenders of installing surveillance cameras everywhere often insist that they're necessary and useful in stopping and solving crime. Yet, even that's being called into serious question, as a study of London's widespread use of CCTV cameras, found that for every 1,000 cameras installed, only one crime has been solved. On top of that, when faced with a crime, the CCTV cameras are rarely that useful. The report found that CCTV cameras were used to catch just 8 out of 269 suspected robbers. And these cameras aren't cheap to install or maintain, making some begin to question if anti-crime budgets couldn't be spent more wisely.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Jake, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 5:47pm

    In fairness to the pro-camera lobby, this is not necessarily the fault of the concept. Going with either the cheapest bidder, the most buzzword-compliant bidder, the bidder with the most golfing buddies in government or some combination thereof undoubtedly hasn't helped their effectiveness; the really low-end ones have such poor resolution that they're barely good enough to describe a fleeing crook to the dispatcher, let alone use as evidence for their prosecution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 27th, 2009 @ 6:04pm

    Ok, but that does not mean that it would be any more sucessful given optimum conditions either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Curious..., Aug 27th, 2009 @ 6:14pm

    But the way this post is written begs the question, if not for those cameras, would the crimes solved rates be much worse? It's not about how many crimes per camera, it's about solve rates with vs solve rates without cameras. It says just 8 out of 269, if it weren't for those cameras, would those 8 have gone free? The article states "We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals.." which sounds like an excellent rate to me. No system is perfect and with all the money being spent, I hope they work harder to improve it instead of sitting back and not realizing the full potential and useage per cost. I am honestly just curious and have no feeling pro or against cameras, this post is just not very informative.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Jim L, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 6:22pm

    Not new news

    Here's the same story from 2007 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras% 2C+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do I wonder about things likeā€¦ What would happen if the system was hacked without detection, from outside or inside and used to commit crimes? Good movie plot, no?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 6:27pm

    Cameras

    Yep, it still takes cops to solve crimes. Cameras don't solve crimes, cops do! The only thing a camera can do is deter a crime, maybe...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 6:37pm

    Surveillance Cameras play a more important role in crime prevention than crimes solving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Pjerky (profile), Aug 27th, 2009 @ 7:05pm

    Question of efficacy or question of privacy?

    Mike, I usually enjoy reading your work, but this time I wonder if it is more about the concern of privacy for the everyday citizen than about the effectiveness of the cameras. While I am certainly no fan of cameras blanketing a city and watching every movement anyone makes, I still see the functional use of such cameras and how they can be highly effective tools in solving crime.

    While just 3% of robbery suspects were caught using the cameras, you failed to mention that 70% of murder investigations were solved using the cameras. I would say that seems to justify the cameras outright, while completely disregarding any other crimes solved. How many of those murder investigations would not have been solved without the help of the cameras?

    If your real concern is privacy than you should state it. But as it stands now I think that the cameras are a mixed bag of privacy and crime solving tool and neither should be taken lightly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Brian, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 7:34pm

    Camera Overlords

    I, for one, welcome our new Surveillance Camera overlords.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 7:49pm

    Re: Question of efficacy or question of privacy?

    It is the typical thing that Mike does with data, selecting only the narrowly focused things that might create "moral outrage" while ignoring the bigger picture.

    The crime in the British capital is at a ten-year low, according to the latest figures released by the London Police. The statistics reveal that crime in London is continuing to fall with clear reductions in knife and gun crime, robbery, and hate crime. Overall crime has fallen for the sixth consecutive year and is now at the lowest level for ten years.

    http://www.geo.tv/1-22-2009/33267.htm

    Sort of sucks when reality gets in the way of a good rant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 27th, 2009 @ 8:18pm

    Of course they are not effective in solving crimes, that is not why they were put in place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 8:20pm

    Was always wondering why they always use these creepy 320x240 5fps cameras. You can't see $h1t in the video. Miniature hidef cameras are just as cheap now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Tek'a R (profile), Aug 27th, 2009 @ 8:41pm

    Re: Re: Question of efficacy or question of privacy?

    Crime, violent and otherwise, is falling in many countries and cities, and, gasp, they are managing to do so without recording every motion made by every single supposedly free citizen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    evgen, Aug 27th, 2009 @ 9:46pm

    If the cameras are ineffective there is no privacy risk.

    Seems that we have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here. Either the cameras are an effective means of identification and tracking, which would make them effective law enforcement tools but a privacy risk, or they are not effective at this task, which would make them unreliable law enforcement tools and not a privacy risk. Which one is it? They can't both be effective at identifying you and tracking your behavior and ineffective at identifying criminals and their criminal activity. Is there some bit of code in there that runs a "if crime_being_committed then become_useless" routine?

    You can argue one side of the fundamental capabilities and risks of the technology or the other, but you do not get to pick and choose your side depending on what deceptive argument you intend on making.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Aug 27th, 2009 @ 10:59pm

    I think you have it wrong here Mike. The benefit of surveillance cameras is not that they help solve crimes. It's that they deter crime. Now, they will not deter a bank robbery, or a premeditated murder. If you have the time to plan things out, the camera is just a challenge to overcome like bank vaults and security personnel. But, for things like petty theft or "minor" violence, having the camera there saying: "We're watching" could be a powerful deterrent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 2:44am

    "It is the typical thing that Mike does with data, selecting only the narrowly focused things that might create "moral outrage" while ignoring the bigger picture.

    The crime in the British capital is at a ten-year low, according to the latest figures released by the London Police. The statistics reveal that crime in London is continuing to fall with clear reductions in knife and gun crime, robbery, and hate crime. Overall crime has fallen for the sixth consecutive year and is now at the lowest level for ten years.

    http://www.geo.tv/1-22-2009/33267.htm

    Sort of sucks when reality gets in the way of a good rant."

    Unfortunately there have been some other surveys and some (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that the crime figures in London are being massaged. Apparently large swathes of the population just don't bother to report various crimes because they either a) don't trust the police b) don't think anything useful would come of it c) plan on their own revenge.

    I'll see if I can track down one of these studies so that I don't just sound like a crank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Jake, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 2:53am

    Re:

    True enough. Still, if blurry low-res cameras with a single-digit framerate can stop eight robberies and possibly deter many more, what might something capable of recording footage admissible in court achieve?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Ilfar, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 3:53am

    Cameras in use

    I've worked Night Patrols for a security company in Christchurch, New Zealand. While driving between checks I'd have a police scanner going in the patrol car. Quite often you'd get a call over the police radio of someone having been in a fight at one club, and someone in the camera conrol room tracking them through town giving the responding unit updates till they caught up with them.

    Sometimes the camera itself doesn't get a shot, but it shows them going into a store whose cameras do give a good shot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 28th, 2009 @ 5:06am

    Re: Re:

    At what cost, both monetary and social.
    If such measures are deemed necessary in order to thwart criminal activity, then I have no desire to ever be there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous of Course, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 7:16am

    Re:

    My guess is bandwidth limitations somewhere
    in the system of transmission and recording
    the data generated by all those cameras.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 8:42am

    Re:

    Care to cite any studies that shows when CCTV is introduced into an area the crime rate drops?

    Thought not...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    faredog, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 10:30am

    wow

    Cameras make better, more skilled criminals. speedycash

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    evgen, Aug 28th, 2009 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re:

    No problem.

    Less than two weeks ago Salt Lake City reported a 50% drop in police roll-outs in a specific location (pioneer park) that had cameras installed. Philly reported a 37% drop in crime rates in 2007 after introducing cameras, Balitmore 17%, NYC 36% in certain locations, and the list goes on and on.

    It is easy to make an argument that these crime rate declines were due to displacement of the activities in question and not direct deterrence, given the limited amount of data available (secondary effects of the cameras really, and reliable crime data beyond simple event tracking is hard to get for obvious reasons) but to suggest that the crime rate is not impacted by these devices shows either stunning ignorance or that you are just too damn lazy to use Google.

    How about this question: care to cite any studies or reported instances of CCTV being used to infringe upon someone's privacy beyond that which is possible without using such a system?

    Thought not...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Comboman, Aug 31st, 2009 @ 6:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How about this question: care to cite any studies or reported instances of CCTV being used to infringe upon someone's privacy beyond that which is possible without using such a system?

    Thought not...

    You didn't wait very long for reply (I guess you always win that way). There are plenty of web sites devoted to documenting abuse of CCTV systems. This is one of the better ones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    מצלמת אב, Nov 8th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    interesting

    Very interesting post I learned a lot

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Troy Sidloski, Apr 29th, 2012 @ 8:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Agreed.
    Surveillance of public areas isn't a crime.
    It isn't invasion of privacy. People have the right to live without crime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This