The Use of CCTV Technology - Article Example

CCTV CAMERA CCTV Camera CCTV is a TV system which provides for monitoring and this system cannot be accessed by the general public but monitoring is done at a central station, primarily for surveillance and security purposes (Rousse, 2012). As in today’s volatile and hostile world where crime rate is increasing, the need for CCTV has increased substantially. The CCTV is mainly operated by installing cameras at particular places and by viewing the recordings of the camera at another point, for example, at police headquarters. The cameras are connected to monitors, as well as recorders, via different means which include either wires or other methods like wireless links. The cameras have the capability to zoom in and track things. This is accompanied with other features. There can be various uses of this CCTV technology; firstly, the most significant use is that of assessing public places for the purpose of avoiding any untoward incidents and to check the actions and functioning of the police. Also this surveillance system is used to keep a record of the happenings so that they can be used for evidential purposes by the law enforcement agencies. This technology is being used on an increased scale by the agencies responsible for maintaining law and order as well as for the purpose of maintenance of traffic regulations. These are also installed in high risk areas to prevent criminal activities. However, although CCTV has aided in the identification and eventual capture of many guilty parties involved in even the pettiest crimes, their increasing usage has raised privacy concern particularly in many European countries (Armitage 2002; Webster 2009). It is argued that CCTV cameras may be used for domestic purpose and there is nothing wrong in that. But it is a violation of the Human Rights Act is applied in the case of these cameras being used in public places by the government (Hinds, 2010). The extent of CCTV coverage have increased dramatically worldwide and in relation to this increase in CCTV usage the government spending and costs of CCTV has also increased simultaneously. “CCTV policy in the UK: reconsidering the evidence base” provides a broad view of CCTV policy in the UK. In particular, it reconsiders the placement of CCTV cameras and systems in public places in relation to backing up the placement of these systems and the massive amount and funding that are spent on them based upon an ‘evidence based’ approach. This evidence is usually assumed to be reductions in crime and the fear of crime among the residents. However, CCTV evidence can be challenged by systems that do not impact on crime that many take for granted. It brings important questions about the rationale for and evidence base behind, CCTV policy and practice. These concerns are examined in this article by exploring a series of myths or misconceptions about CCTV (Webster, 2009). Revolution is significant as it highlights the complex interwoven interactions between government, policymakers, the media and other stakeholders, and that the CCTV does not necessarily have to "work" if it meets other purposes. The article also provide evidence that CCTV policy is reviewed, not just in relation to its established evidence base, but also in the context of the emergence of concern about the cost of managing systems (Webster, 2009). From the year 1994 till the year 1997, the Home Office of the UK spent about £38 million to fund 585 CCTV schemes within the UK. And within the next five years a further massive amount of £170 million was made available for CCTV schemes. However, despite this boom in government spending, there has been little quality evidence that supports these expenditures (Armitage, 2002). CCTV investment is not only restricted to the installation of the system but the constant repairs and checking of this system also requires funding. The capital cost of each capital is about £20000 whereas the individual cost of maintenance is around £12000 (Westminster City Council, 2002). According to an article written by Reeve in The Guardian in 2009, an average private CCTV security company in the UK spends around £3.5 million/ annually to monitor and this amount can also get 150 police officers walking and patrolling the streets. Reeve argues that although CCTV offers 24 hours surveillance, however, most of the people still prefer the presence of cops in their neighborhoods and streets as cops can instantly take action and resolve the deviant behavior or criminal act whereas CCTV may only gather evidence of the crime that is taking place. Important questions have been raised that if the CCTV system is important and if it actually provides for the functions that it is meant to provide. All these questions must be fully answered before spending massive amount in public spending on CCTV. Saetan and his colleagues worked on the ongoing issue of CCTV cameras and wrote a paper by assessing the data that was collected from a research. This research examined CCTV operations in two countries which included Norway and Denmark. Their paper raises concerns that other issues besides privacy concern might be at stake if CCTV is placed in public spaces. The paper explains the fact that this surveillance has good as well as bad effects for the general public. The positive effects of CCTV cameras may be owing to the fact that they provide the people with more safety and thus provide them with a feeling of social security. Finally, the paper suggests that CCTV practices should not be eliminated but regulated to prevent social cohesion among people (Saetan, Lomell & Wiecek, 2004). Recently, due to heightened privacy issues relating to CCTV camera’s in the UK, the CCTV cameras in Newcastle were switched off. It was reported that data protection laws were broken when some old timers aged in their 90s residing in that area saved footage on cassettes and digital recorders. As a consequence, the system was shut down. However, many were outraged at this news as they claimed that cameras provided them with a sense of security and peace of mind that their home is safe from intruders (Snexis, 2010). It is argued by many that privacy is civil liberty of people and represents their identity and motives and the problem of CCTV or the unobservable observer poses a direct threat to these rights of individuals. The law should approach and cater to this issue by establishing some regulations for the usage of CCTV (Goold, 2002). Surveillance in public places has now become a part of everyday life and a proper assessment of ethical and legal issues pertaining to it should be made. One possible drawback of this technology could be inability of the camera to cover wide range and record audio communication of the commuters. Moreover, the video quality is also below par. There has been past incidents where the CCTV has provided erroneous information but the blame cannot be put to the technology. The technicians or the personals responsible for monitoring the activities on the CCTV need to be vigilant. Recently in a war ridden country, Pakistan, a bomb blast in railway station left law enforcing agencies clueless as the CCTV cameras were not operational because of delayed in payment to private security company (“The News”, 2012). CCTV helped the London police to locate the suspects of London bombings; thus, further substantiating the fact that combination of modern technology and intelligence can foil the motives of the terrorists in the long run. It also ensures that the culprit cannot escape the clutches of law (McVeigh, 2007). CCTV can be used for reconnaissance, determining main terrorists and their strategy, the extensive usage of camouflage etcetera. Since majority of the crimes have unique indicators, thus, effective and optimal usage of CCTV can help the law enforcers. Apparently, there could be no benefit of CCTV if there is no intelligence sharing (Donald, 2010). It is to be noted that government prefer to install CCTV cameras on the areas notorious for riots based on ethnicity and race. For instance, the British government has placed CCTV cameras on areas where Muslim population and immigrants of other race and religion are in abundance (Lewis, 2010). It is important to note that installation of CCTV on British Streets has been the major crime prevention initiative taken up by the government authorities. However, little attention is being paid to what is being monitored and how central operators can effectively use this technology. Efforts are constantly being made to shed light on the complexity of measuring the impact of CCTV monitoring on factors like crime rate and domestic violence, and have led to the conclusion that CCTV has a sober reductionist potential on these factors. The power of CCTV operators should also not be undermined because it is highly discretionary as they have the latitude of who will be watched and for how long (Norris & Armstrong, n.d.). Since the inception of mankind, terrorism has been haunting the people. But nowadays, combination of modern technology along with weapons has proved to be more lethal. The biggest advantage terrorists have is that they are the non-state actors. And they usually equip themselves with new weapons to terrorize people. Unfortunately, there is not much in terms of antidote as far as terrorism is concerned but the modern man has developed various ways to hinder the effect of terrorism or to know the culprits that have been using unlawful activities. CCTV has proved to be more helpful in determining the culprits that resort to such heinous activity. Developed countries have put a great use to his technology and more recently third world countries have taken a leaf out of their book and have been putting more emphasis on security of their citizens. CCTV only helps in providing the clues to the law enforcers; which, if used intelligently, could help them to join the dots and unravel the mystery. The crime rate has greatly increased all across the globe. Many ways and methods have been devised to overcome this issue and to ensure for the security of the people. CCTV cameras serve as one such method which is being utilized for this purpose of maintaining the security. There have been many questions raised as to whether the CCTV cameras should be used or not. They are favored for by people and law enforcement agencies who believe that these cameras aid in overcoming the criminal activities by strong surveillance. The opponents argue that these cameras intrude the privacy of the common man and thus they should be avoided. Considering the current threats and criminal, it is important that CCTV cameras should be maintained and regulated. Bibliography Armitage, R. (2002). To CCTV or not to CCTV?. [Online] Available: http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0505/nacro02.pdf. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Donald, C. (2010). Counter-terrorism and CCTV. [Online] Available: http://www.securitysa.com/article.aspx?pklarticleid=5948. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Goold, B.J. (2002). Privacy Rights and Public Spaces: CCTV and the Problem of the ‘Unobservable Observer’. [Online] Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585477. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Hinds,A. (2012). CCTV Cameras And Your Privacy. [Online] Available: http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/cctvsystems.html. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Karen, M. (2007). How CCTV helped snare failed terrorists. [Online] Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/10/terrorism.world2. Last accessed 29th July 2012. Lewis, P. (2010). Surveillance cameras spring up in Muslim areas - the targets? Terrorists. [Online] Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/04/birmingham-surveillance-cameras-muslim-community. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Nexis, L. (2009). UK Citys CCTV Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns. [Online] Available: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/news/10492238/uk-citys-cctv-cameras-raise-privacy-concerns. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Norris,C. & Armstrong, G. (n.d.). CCTV and the Social Structuring of Surveillance. Crime Prevention Studies. 10, p157-178. Norris, C., McCahill, M. & Wood, D. (2004). The Growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space. [Online] Available: http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles2(2)/editorial.pdf. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Privacy Commissioner. (2009). Privacy and CCTV. [Online] Available: http://privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Brochures-and-pamphlets-and-pubs/Privacy-and-CCTV-A-guide-October-2009.pdf. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Reeve, T. (2009). The real cost – and value – of CCTV. [Online] Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost. [Accessed 29th July 2012] Saetan, A.R.; Lomell, M.H. & Wiecek, C. (2004). Controlling CCTV in Public Spaces: Is Privacy the (Only) Issue? Reflections on Norwegian and Danish observations. Surveillance & Society.2 ((2/3)), p396-414. Webster, C.W.R. (2009). The real cost – and value – of CCTV. Surveillance & Society.6(1) (1), p10-22. Read More