The million-plus surveillance cameras that monitor London’s citizens haven’t stopped much crime, the BBC reports. According to a police report, just one crime was solved by every 1,000 cameras, creating “a huge intrusion on privacy, yet … little or no improvement in security.” Similarly in the U.S., writes Peter Moskos, the “cornerstone of urban policing,” cops patrolling in cars, “has no effect on crime rates, victimization, or public satisfaction.” [%comments]
Cameras or Cops?
TAGS: police
and 
. You can also watch it on 
How can me measure the crimes which are not committed with the fear that there is a camera which is watching our action ….
I’m with Micah and Gary, have crime rates in areas where the cameras are located decreased by any appreciable amount?
I had a friend who was accused of assaulting a police officer and being drunk and disorderly. (Not in London, but in the UK). The camera evidence was used that he plainly hadn’t assaulted anyone, and whilst drunk wasn’t particularly disorderly.
That doesn’t count as a crime solved, but it shows some other uses of camera.
This has been a fascination of mine – Car patrols are such a corner stone of american policing, but I’ve seen alternatives that probably would work just as well.
I’m particularly curious to see how the Japanese Koban* method might work, where you have one or two officers that hang out at a neighborhood police box all day; this means that there is always local police presence, and that you always know where to find them. This might also solve a major issue with the current US policing method where the police are often seen as outsiders that the community that would need them most doesn’t trust.
* to anticipate concerns, yes, the Japanese may not have as many issues with crime now (though they are on the rise), but this koban system was first developed during the feudal era when things were significantly less rosy.
“a huge intrusion on privacy”
I always bristle when I see this line used in discussions of publicly mounted cameras. Speed cameras, traffic light cameras, ATM cameras, security cameras at banks, etc. When you say those things are an “intrusion” on your privacy, do you mean to imply that leaving your home and walking down the street in full view of everyone constitutes “privacy”? Should we avert our eyes when we see each other walking down the high street?
Or does it only constitute an “intrusion” when it’s the government that is doing it? Even if the “government” in this case is the police force that you pay to watch out for you when you’re out wandering the public streets?
Really, if you value your privacy so VERY much, why not stay home with the curtains drawn?
Besides, Ross (#4) is right…
Anon @ 11 – well, if the cop had been convicted of perjury (hahaha), that would be a crime solved by CCTV.
Of course, if that sort of thing actually started happening, the cameras would be uninstalled rather rapidly.
I did some searches and found that at least in the short term, cameras DO reduce crime rates in towns where they are installed:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-112293739.html
You have to remember the motivations of the criminal. The penalty of committing a crime is ZERO when you don’t get caught. If you think you aren’t going to get caught, then you assume that the penalty for committing the crime is zero. Most criminals know that MOST of the time, they will get away with it. Most criminals get away with several crimes before they are caught and convicted of one.
I’m not a big fan of cameras installed everywhere either, but if they increase the PERCEPTION that you will be caught, then you will reduce crime.
Gee Tad, you enjoy being spied on that much do you?
Here’s an experiment, we take all the film footage of you taken by these cameras and broadcast it on TV 24/7. How could you object, it’s all quite public isn’t it.
What good would staying home do, they just monitor your calls and Internet use.