Crime Prevention - Video and Data Surveillance - Essay Example

? Video Surveillance in Crime Prevention A False Sense of Security Due Introduction We live in a modern society filled with all sorts of crime, from muggings in darkened allies to cyber-crimes in the faceless forum of the internet. The world today can be a dangerous place. The implementation of Crime Prevention approaches have been, and continue to be, a large part of the solution to these problems. Crime Prevention is defined as the attempts made to deter crime, lower victimization, significantly enhance the gathering of data on criminal acts, and provide potential prevention response and preparedness (Rosenbaum, Lurigio & Davis, 1998). Video surveillance, or CCTV, has become a favored choice in the goal of preventing criminal activity in both businesses and private properties, and now by government and law enforcement to monitor potential criminal activities of the day to day populace. There are many people who are eager for that level of “persistent “security,” while others believe it is a blatant betrayal of individual privacy and civil rights. However, after reviewing the studies attempted, public response, and potential negative side effects, it becomes amply obvious that the video surveillance approach is misleading and not particularly effective in actually preventing crimes. Issues The Studies It can be difficult to study comparable efficiencies of video surveillance because of all the differing factors involved, the size of cities, population, and number of cameras is only a small part. The studies performed in the U.S. and Britain came to the same conclusion concerning video surveillance. Britain has embraced the video surveillance age and has for quite some time. There are approximately 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain; it is possible for one person to appear on a hundred different cameras in any given day. The U.S. by comparison has far less cameras (Landler, 2007). The U.S. studies were performed in California: the first by UC Berkeley in San Francisco and the second - by USC in Los Angeles. Regardless of the number of cameras, whether in the U.S. or Britain, there were no significant changes identified in crime rates over all. The Cost Despite the questionable success ratio, multiple other U.S. cities are encouraging the implementation video surveillance systems; Chicago and New York are just two. This is a very serious concern. Millions of taxpayer dollars are currently being invested in video surveillance, but entirely neglecting to look seriously at the efficiency, practicality, logistics, and cost effectiveness of the endeavors (Biale, n. d.). Combining the cost of the technology, the related equipment, the law enforcement cooperation necessary, and the staff needed to monitor and maintain the equipment, it becomes very obvious that video surveillance may be a complete waste of money, particularly, in these bleak economic times that the U.S. is still suffering. Even more so, after the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, published the results of studies showing that when a person stares at multiple monitors, after 20 minutes their attention span dramatically reduces, well below the acceptable levels ("What's wrong with," 2002). So the people who are supposed to be watching for “crimes” are compromised and not particularly efficient. Public Opinions Citizens of the U.S. seem care less about the ability of video surveillance to deter crime and more about whether it is a genuine invasion of individual privacy. The idea does bring up questions concerning if it is “just” for American citizens to be watched all of the time? Also, if people know they are being watched, will they behave differently? For many people it could create anxiety, paranoia, and forced unnatural behaviors to avoid “looking suspicious,” even when they are doing nothing illegal or inappropriate. It could also alter people’s daily routines, where they go and how often. The ACLU also warns that potential dangers of regular video surveillance come in the form while probable misuses of the technology. It would be entirely possible for corrupt law enforcement officers to use the video they obtain to abuse their power for personal gains or crimes like stalking, harassment, voyeurism, or promote a personal agenda. There is also the possibility that “techno-savvy” criminals could invade such systems and take advantage of that information ("What's wrong with," 2002). The ACLU also questions the total legality of such surveillance. After all, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from video searches by law enforcement, but there are no such laws in relation to this nature of surveillance. With future technological advancements like computerized drones, cameras that interactively admonish wrongdoers, like people who have littered, and programs designed to monitor closely your email and social media websites, it would be wise to devise laws that can control and provide boundaries both legal and ethical in place (Thorn, 2012). Discussion No one is intending to negate the aid provided by security surveillance inside public businesses and private properties. However, most of the contributions of video surveillance come in the form of helping identify perpetrators after a crime has been committed and less about deterring the criminal behavior to begin with. Supporters of mass implementation of continuous video surveillance claim that this is the kind of security measures that help to prevent traditional crime and terrorism. They reference the terrorist attack on a subway car in Britain, in 2005, where video surveillance helped guarantee that those men responsible stood trial. Again, however, this only supports its value after a crime, not before. Researchers are convinced that cameras will have little effect on “suicide-bombers;” if one is not intending to survive, then they do not care if they are seen on camera (Landler, 2007). The continuing implementation of video surveillance technology is creating a false sense of security: citizens think they are safer. However, there is evidence that anyone is less likely to become a victim of a crime because of the presence of video surveillance. It may be useful in indentifying assailants, but not as a tool to prevent crimes. Conclusion At this very moment all of our individual and personal information is data collected in cyberspace, from web searches to social networks and from school transcripts to health records. (Thorn, 2012) This can be a little frightening. The advantages of technology had diminished the guarantee of personal privacy on several levels. In the case of video surveillance, if the loss of some privacy resulted in an absolute reduction in crime, then the topic might be more advantageous to debate. But that is simply not the case. Video surveillance systems are highly expensive to install, implement, monitor, and maintain. They tempt the ethical line between security and privacy. Lastly, multiple studies have shown that they have no significant effect on crime rates, both, nationally and internationally. The Untied States, like a large part of the world, is moving into greater technology and greater dependence upon it. As with all things it is necessary determine what means is sufficient to support security without degrading personal privacy and freedom - all things in moderation. Finding the “happy-medium” will be the source of intense debate between the two sides of the issue for a very long time to come. References Biale, N. (n.d.). What criminologists and others studying cameras have found. ACLU: Expert findings on surveillance cameras, 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf Landler, M. (2007, July 8). Where little is left outside the camera’s eye. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/weekinreview/08landler.html?_r=1& Thorn, V. (2012, December 19). Big brother is watching in multitude of new ways. American Free Press. Retrieved from http://americanfreepress.net/?p=7724 Rosenbaum, D. P., lurigio , A. J., & Davis, R. C. (1998). The prevention of crime. Cengage-Learning. What's wrong with public video surveillance? (2002, February 25). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance .   Read More