Surveillance cameras - speak truth to power?
One of the annoying things about the discussions around surveillance cameras is the tendency for the device itself to be referred to as a "security" camera. This, of course, highjacks criticism and positions the object as something that is beyond reproach. How could you be against "security?" In truth, there is nothing inherently secure about a camera. It is inert and cannot take action in a risky situation.
Moreover, surveillance cameras are rarely monitored and when monitored they are not monitored by people who can deploy a response. There are exceptions to this, of course, but rare. As anyone who has had the experience can attest, the images recorded by cameras are typically referred to long after the event, typically with a narration by the guard in charge: "Yup. There goes your (bike/backpack/leather jacket). See, just there, in the corner? Too bad about that."
Surveillance cameras don't make you "secure" in your person, either. The kind of incident that would *really* make you want to pay for/support/endorse a surveillance camera, the violent crime, is rarely premeditated, rarely unaccompanied by alcohol and drugs, and as a result rarely deterred by a surveillance camera.
Both of these "insecurities" are well documented by research, with the summary conclusion of a major study by the UK "home office" being
Overall, the best current evidence suggests that CCTV reduces crime to a small degree. CCTV is most effective in reducing vehicle crime in car parks, but it had little or no effect on crime in public transport and city centre settings.
The reference to "CCTV" is another misnomer, of course. These cameras are rarely "closed circuit" any more, and exist in vast networks monitored from central locations. In some cases the monitoring is done by international outsourcing firms based in other countries. But that's a whole other topic...
So I insist on calling them surveillance cameras, and I hope you will too. Don't let the language of commercial interests colour the real nature of these technologies. At the same time, calling them for what they are doesn't mean I am recommending a knee-jerk rejection of surveillance cameras, either. Surveillance cameras have a place in our society but they should be used responsibly and their potential harms acknowledged and mitigated.
NOTE: When I was trying to formulate a title to this post I was initially hesitant to use the "speak truth to power" phrase, made famous by the Quakers many years ago (see http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html). When I started to think about it, though, the very essence of surveillance is to watch over someone as part of the exercise of power. Moreover, controlling the language we use about something is fundamental to retaining and asserting power, as George Orwell knew only too well in his book about Big Brother and the "Ministry of Truth." So, my use of the phrase stands.
(Image from Wikipedia)
Comments [0]