Study Critical of San Francisco Surveillance Cameras

"SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) -- San Francisco’s surveillance cameras in high-crime areas do not prevent violent crime, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California.
The long-awaited study by the UC Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society found the program is hurt by lack of training and oversight, a failure to integrate footage with other police efforts, poor quality cameras, and what may be a fundamental weakness of cameras as anti-crime devices.

Mayor Newsom began the program four years ago, but out of concern for people’s privacy, police are not allowed to monitor cameras in real time. Investigators must wait until a crime is reported before looking at footage."

Read the report by clicking here.

Cutting ribbons on CCTV projects may help get politicians re-elected, but let's finally stop saying that cameras "prevent" crime. Properly configured, positioned, maintained ... and with good timing, they "may" assist investigators in solving crimes. But "prevent" crime ...

Enjoy.

when will they learn?

"Ironically, the cameras stopped working not necessarily because of lack of maintenance, that has been the official attitude of government to public facilities, but because of lack of planning and cluelessness."

"With Nigeria’s sorry electricity situation, such a project should not have been contemplated without first solving the problem of powering it after installation. The issue of alternative power supply should have been an important decision to be accorded priority in determining whether the cameras should be bought in the first place and the type to be installed."

Read more here.

Flint seeks sponsors for police surveillance cameras

NASCAR is doing it, so why can't we? Check out this interesting article from Flint, Michigan.

Even if they aren't as effective for most crimes as increased patrols or improved lighting, cities are scrambling to get them installed.

CCTV's Effectiveness Called Into Question

A recently published study calls into question the effectiveness of CCTV as a crime prevention tool.

• [CCTV had no] statistically significant effect in reducing the overall monthly crime rates within the target areas
• CCTV had no statistically significant effect on monthly arrest rates for misdemeanor “quality of life” infractions in either [of the target areas]

"These differences between the apparent ineffectiveness of cameras to deter violent crimes, by comparison to their apparent success in deterring property crimes, may relate back to the underlying theory that some crimes, such as property-related offenses like larceny, are often opportunistic (Fabrikant 1979). In contrast, many violent crimes may be motivated by passions that make individuals less rational, more impulsive, and therefore less influenced by the risk of detection or apprehension."

“There is a constant tug-of-war between resources. Do we put another cop on the street or get another camera in place?” (Interview, Farrell March 27, 2008). Farrell further explained that even when criminal activity is detected on the CCTV system, it is not always possible to mobilize units quickly enough to respond if there are other, higher priority calls for service. Moreover, in Hollywood, the cameras are not routinely monitored during the day, and when they are monitored, there is generally one officer monitoring footage from 14 cameras; therefore, it is likely that there are criminals who have had the experience of “getting away” with crime in the monitored areas and may no longer feel deterred by the cameras."

"Policymakers considering video surveillance of public places by law enforcement should not presume that crime reduction or prevention will occur automatically — or at all."

"Law enforcement that does not have the resources to respond to crime and enforce laws, such as certain types of property crimes and minor offenses where cameras are located, may lead to the belief by criminals that some crimes are inconsequential. Following the “broken windows” theory of policing, criminals may eventually believe that they can commit more serious crimes in the absence of consequences, nullifying any deterrent effect the cameras may have."

Many thanks to Doktor Jon for the heads up on this publication. The tide may be turning against the "Carpet Bombing" of CCTV in cities. If you are going to arguing for more cameras, it may help to read this report. The opposition surely has.

Does video evidence collect itself?

An interesting post from a fellow blogger begs an interesting question. With the video security industry focussing on analytics and faster/smarter search capabilities - this still leaves the problem of collection and processing for court purposes. 

Video evidence has to be collected and properly preserved somehow - by someone. With the recorders only retaining data for X amount of days before recording over themselves, it has to be done in a timely manour or its gone forever. Add to that the proprietary nature of these systems - and the problem multiplies.

Food for thought. Yes, CCTV is great. But does video evidence collect itself?

More bad news for CCTV fans

From the Herald - Dublin, Ireland.

"City officials said in a report that there are a number of problems with "passive cameras", which are ones not monitored in real time but viewed after the event."

"The cameras have to be set so as to focus on a single small area, otherwise the footage captured would not be useful in identifying anyone involved in anti-social behaviour," the report stated.

"This requires that the anti-social behaviour happens 'in-shot'. Our experience in setting the mobile covert anti-dumping CCTV to capture instances of dumping in-shot leads us to the conclusion that this approach is only about 10pc effective in actually capturing an event of dumping," it added.

Many politicians still insist that placing more cameras in problem areas will help reduce crime. Unfortunately for them, the reality of this situation is beginning to be reported. 

This quote from the article pretty much sums it up, "And officials said, even when the dumping has been caught on camera, the council has never actually identified the culprit from the footage."

What do you do when your local leaders continue to help generate these mountains of image based evidence? You do as always, the best that you can with what you have. As workloads increase, you have a valuable resource - the Forensic Photoshop workflow.

Enjoy.