Introduction
Public security cameras, commonly referred to as CCTV (Close-Circuit Television), have become a standard attribute of modern life and are widely used by authorities, business organizations, and even private individuals. According to Norris and McCahill, by 2006, an estimated number of cameras in the United Kingdom had reached 4,2 million, or 1 per every 14 citizens (as cited in Piza, 2016, p. 1). Some people are wary of CCTV and consider it an intrusion into their privacy, while others advocate its usefulness for public security and crime prevention. In this way, CCTV can be seen as a double-edged sword, an instrument, which provides increased safety at the possible cost of some degree of personal freedom. However, the cameras are nothing but pieces of electronic equipment, operated and maintained by humans, so they can neither pose a threat to privacy nor prevent crime on their own. In that regard, CCTV does not curb crime entirely, but it can act as a deterrent to certain criminal activities if adequately deployed and used.
CCTV Efficiency Against Crime
Available studies showed varying degrees of CCTV efficiency in deterring and solving different types of crime. The first case took place in Medellin, Columbia, where local authorities installed extra 587 security cameras at crime hot spots (Gomez-Cardona et al., 2017). Studies of criminal cases in these hot spots had shown a 23,5% decrease in reported crime and a 31,5% decrease in arrests following the installation of the CCTV system. This result was achieved even with lowered monitoring capacity caused by the increase of camera per operator number from 32 to 69 (Gomez-Cardona et al., 2017). CCTV proved to be an especially efficient solution for lowering the number of property-related crimes. The reason for that might be a deterring effect of the cameras since possible offenders found that the risk of getting spotted and arrested is not worth the potential benefits from the crime. Overall, in the case of Medellin, public surveillance cameras proved to be a worthwhile investment for public safety since property crime rates dropped after the installation. Additional operators can further improve the situation by increasing the network’s monitoring capacity.
The second example of CCTV crime deterring effect comes from Newark, the largest city in New Jersey, with 28% of the population living below the poverty level in 2015, according to U.S. Census Bureau (as cited in Piza, 2016, p. 4). After studying the data from CCTV cameras, Piza (2016) concluded that security cameras were efficient in deterring auto thefts, lowering their number by 21% after the installation. However, their impact on violent crimes and thefts from auto prevention appeared to be statistically insignificant. The reduction of auto thefts can be reasonably explained by CCTV’s ability to record the footage and capture the license plate of the stolen vehicle, making it easier for the police to locate it. Nevertheless, a lack of positive impact on violent crimes rate reveals that CCTV systems cannot provide the necessary deterring effect in some cases. Inconspicuous, audacious, or fast offenders often ignore the presence of cameras or disappear from their range of view too quickly, so finding and incarcerating them remains the task for the police. Therefore, the CCTV network can be a valuable supplementary asset for the competent police force and deter non-violent property crimes. Still, its total crime prevention potential should not be overestimated.
CCTV and Privacy Issues
The data presented above prove the positive influence of CCTV in the deterrence of certain crimes; however, the question of its intrusiveness into privacy needs to be addressed as well. Research on CCTV implementation in Israeli schools conducted by M. Birnhack and L. Perry-Hazan provides an insight into this matter. The researchers interviewed 22 school principals who approved the installation of CCTV systems in their schools. According to their answers, Birnhack and Perry-Hazan (2016) defined three main applications of security cameras at schools. Some of these applications might look quite controversial and borderline invasion into the privacy of students.
Firstly, security cameras were used for the most controversial goal — to gather pieces of evidence for disciplinary measures discreetly. Birnhack and Perry-Hazan (2016) divided these measures into three practices — direct presentation of proofs, covert investigations, and eliciting confessions. In the first case, camera footage was used to confront the students for inappropriate behavior immediately. The second practice was subtler, as the footage from CCTV was not used unless the principal deemed it necessary. In the last procedure, the cameras were not used at all, as the threat to watch the footage from them was enough to elicit confession in inappropriate behavior. Birnhack and Perry-Hazan (2016) argued that such a powerless position of students in schools with extensive usage of CCTV could create a dangerous gap between reality and human rights theory. The other two applications were not so controversial since CCTV was used to provide the school’s territory security and gain the student’s trust by believing in their words instead of watching the footage.
Overall, this example of a security camera application shows that the intentions of CCTV owners can turn it into a possible threat to privacy, even if these intentions are benign. Such events are not bound to happen, but the human wish of security and strive for control will always leave such possibility. In this case, it would be wise to remember the lawful rights and know what level of CCTV coverage is legally acceptable in a particular situation.
CCTV and Safety Issues
One should not consider CCTV systems a thing in itself, since any equipment or mechanism requires maintenance from qualified personnel. Surveillance cameras are not an exception, as they can malfunction or have vulnerabilities, leading to security or privacy risks. According to Costin (2016), the cameras can be targeted with visual, audio, and covert channel attacks, which can distort or erase video and audio recordings or even transfer security footage to the attacker. The consequences of such attacks can be significant, considering the fact that security cameras are often used in confidential or commercially valuable activities, such as law enforcement, retail, and transportation. Therefore, the efficiency of CCTV systems and the final results of their application ultimately depend on the quality of equipment and the human factor.
Conclusion
CCTV systems have become widely used in many spheres of human life. With proper implementation and maintenance, CCTV can become a useful addition to law enforcement structures and, to some extent, deter criminal activities, even though its impact and capabilities should not be overestimated. Although their application can have a controversial nature, the outcome of security camera usage and proper functioning of surveillance systems depends on human operators. Since the cameras cannot violate privacy on their own, it is necessary to be aware of their presence and understand the situations when surveillance crosses the line and becomes illegal.
References
Birnhack, M., & Perry-Hazan, L. (2016). The hidden human rights curriculum of surveillance cameras in schools: due process, privacy and trust. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1–18.
Costin, A. (2016). Security of CCTV and video surveillance systems: Threats, vulnerabilities, attacks, and mitigations. In Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on trustworthy embedded devices, 45–54.
Gomez-Cardona, S., Mejia, D., Tobon, S. (2017). The deterrent effect of public surveillance cameras on crime. Documento CEDE, 2017(09), 3–26.
Piza, E.L, (2016). The crime prevention effect of CCTV in public places: a propensity score analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 1–17.