Closed Circuit Television - Crime Prevention Technology or Privacy Intruding Apparatus - Coursework Example

Running Head: CCTV CCTV: A Crime Prevention Technology or Privacy Intruding Apparatus? CCTV: A Crime Prevention Technology or Privacy Intruding Apparatus? Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras are used to monitor and document images of what occurs in specific locations that are within the reach of those cameras instantaneously. The images that are captured are sent to a monitor and recorded as digital information or on tape. The CCTV cameras can be fixed or programmed to scan a specific location or they can be operated using controllers. The monitors can then be viewed by controllers or left unmonitored. The information that is recorded can be kept and/or retrieved and viewed by people who have access to the information at their convenience (National Community Crime Prevention Programme, n.d., p. 1). The use of CCTV technology is regarded as one of the ways in which crime can be prevented since the CCTV cameras record images in real time, and as such, criminals are likely to be deterred from committing crime by the mere fact that they are aware that they are being watched, or that they can easily be found after committing a crime. On the other hand, CCTV technology is also under criticism because of the point that keeping people under watch all the time (where such cameras are fitted) denies such people their right to privacy. Against this background, this essay will argue that although the use of CCTV somehow helps to prevent crime, CCTV is not a panacea for alleviating crime, and that the technology is also associated with concerns relating to intrusion into people’s privacy. Use of CCTV in the UK It is argued that the use of CCTV cameras for the purposes of dealing with crime has significantly increased over the past decade (Woodhouse, 2010). Edwards (2005) argues that since the late 1980s, more than one million CCTV cameras have been installed in Britain, and the number has been growing because approximately 500 or more cameras are installed every week. Edwards further points out that in January 2004, a report by the Independent newspaper indicated that there were over four million cameras being used in the UK, which accounted for about 20 per cent of all the CCTV cameras being used across the world, and that the average Briton was captured on camera at least 300 times a day (p. 91). The number has grown further, and the figure being quoted in recent research studies is approximately 4.2 million CCTV cameras in use in the UK (Woodhouse, 2010; Siegel, 2011, p. 94) while Crawford (2009, p. 10) has quoted over 4.25 million cameras, suggesting high acceptance of CCTV among the UK society. It is for this reason that Edwards (2005) suggests that the UK is the most closely monitored society in Europe, and probably across the world (p. 91). While many CCTV cameras are being installed in the UK to help in tackling crime, there are also others which are installed in non-crime areas to monitor traffic, such as the London Congestion Charging Scheme, which was launched in February 2003. Regardless of where they are installed and how they are used, CCTV cameras are ubiquitous in the UK. They are located in places of work, schools, housing estates, hospitals, public thoroughfares, in shopping malls and centres, in banks, inside car parks, in stores, on high streets, on coaches, buses and other types of public transport. The cameras are also installed and used by different types of entities including private individuals, local authorities, corporate security organisations, the police, as well as other government or state-related organisations (Edwards, 2005, p. 91). The effectiveness of CCTV can be viewed differently as was stated in the introduction. One the one hand, the presence of CCTV cameras in places such as banks or car parks may deter crime since criminals will be afraid of being are arrested in the act or after. On the other hand, the presence of cameras in many places such as shopping malls, hospitals, housing estates and so forth implies that many people are being observed without their knowledge or permission, and this can be adjudged as an intrusion into their privacy. The following sections will discuss the implications of using CCTV cameras as a crime prevention strategy and the ethical, social and legal issues related to the same issue. Arguments about the Effectiveness of CCTV in Preventing Crime CCTV technology acts an environmental crime prevention tool. Various authors (for instance Welch and Farrington 2006, cited by the National Community Crime Prevention Programme, n.d.) have described the effects of using CCTV in preventing crime as follows. To start with, CCTV cameras offer a surveillance function that may work to deter people from committing crimes in the spaces in which they are used. Specifically, the presence of CCTV cameras in an area is likely to deter pretty crimes such as pick pocketing and can prevent ‘spur of the moment’ crimes such as shoplifting, car theft, public drunkenness, breach of peace and vagrancy, and thus promote public order (Edwards, 2005, p. 92). In addition, if such crimes do take place, CCTV documentation is one of the various ways that can be used to gather evidence to successfully indict the perpetrators (Edwards, 2005, p. 92). Secondly, the use CCTV cameras signifies to the public that an area under surveillance is safe, and the increased use of the space because of this assurance implies that the possibility of crime happening is reduced because of the existence of many witnesses. Thirdly, the presence of CCTV cameras in an area may act as a reminder to people to observe other safety measures such as keeping their cars locked, keeping an eye on their luggage and so forth (Edwards, 2005, p. 92). Various research studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of CCTV in dealing with crime. The visual disincentive that CCTV cameras produce is often perceived as the key function of this effectiveness. For instance, Geake (1993, cited by Coaffee, 2009, p. 56) highlighted that CCTV led to 95 per cent deterrence of crime and helped in five per cent of detection of crime. In addition to this, the warning signs that are frequently displayed indicating that an area is under close watch further reinforce the preventive value of CCTV. This is because the existence of CCTV camera systems as well as signage indicating their presence creates a perceived risk that may cause would-be criminals to opt for another location or another target (Arrington, 2007, p. 151). But in a different view, a research conducted by the Home Office in 1995 blurred this perspective since it showed that the deterrent effect became less noticeable with time, since criminals were able to work out the direction that the CCTV cameras faced (Coaffee, 2009, p. 56). It is thus indubitable that the question of whether CCTV cameras are an effective technology in the prevention of crime is still amenable to discussion. It is important however to discuss the effectiveness of CCTV cameras by also considering the ethical, social and legal issues surrounding their use as outlined next. Ethical, Social and Legal Issues related to the Use of CCTV The effectiveness and ethical predicaments associated with the use of CCTV can be analysed by looking at a number of questions posed by Lanier and Henry (2010, p. 87). These are: (1) What are the ethical matters involved in the use of technology in surveillance? (2) Does closely monitoring people deter crime? (3) Does the surveillance technology fulfil the role it is supposed to play, and is it being used in the right way? To answer the first question about ethical issues, it is important to look at the point that CCTV cameras are increasingly prying into people’s public spaces as well as their private homes. Along this line, public opinion surveys cited by Lanier and Henry (2010) show that few people mind that they are under surveillance (p. 87). According to information cited by Lanier and Henry (2010), seventy per cent of the public were shown to support the use of CCTV. This view is also supported by authors such as William and Webster (2007), who argue that one noteworthy feature of the CCTV phenomenon is the level to which the introduction of the surveillance devices appears to have widespread public support (p. 19). This is because most people are of the opinion that they are not doing anything that is wrongful, that is, they have nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of. Viewed this way, it can be argued that many people do not mind they are being observed through CCTV because they can sacrifice their privacy issues for security. But at the same time, surveillance theories have noted a disconcerting effect of being monitored: that widespread surveillance of people through devices such as CCTV can have a disciplinary impact on those who are not involved in any wrongdoing (Dubbeld, 2003, pp. 156–157). In particular, it is indicated that the use of CCTV can cause a particular kind of ‘terse’ mannerism in those being observed (Dubbeld, 2003, p. 157). In many cases, the support for the use of CCTV cameras is often informed by the view that such cameras work in averting, detecting and dissuading would-be criminals from committing their acts (William & Webster, 2007, p. 19). But a key question here is whether the use of CCTV technology creates a delusive feeling of security and whether the cameras are actually being used to watch the right people (Lanier & Henry, 2010, p. 88). For instance, having CCTV cameras in places where there is little possibility of committing crime (for instance places which have frequent police presence) implies that such cameras could be monitoring people who are not likely to commit crime. As well, it is important to evaluate whether members of the public are deluding themselves that CCTV cameras protect them even when the majority of proof indicates that they make little difference to the occurrence of crime (Lanier & Henry, 2010, p. 88). Going back to the perception that many people do not mind their public and private spaces being pried into so long as doing so guarantees their security as highlighted above, there are concerns regarding how CCTV technology is used not only in the UK but also in other countries where such crime prevention measures have been deployed. In these countries, the public has expressed its reservations regarding the issue of how advances in technology (such the increase in spaces under surveillance) are damaging to the safeguarding of personal information and privacy (Ruegg et al. 2004, cited by Carli, 2008, p. 12). For instance, in France, the Commission national de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) or the National Commission on Informatics and Liberty cautions of the danger that the use of CCTV takes away the liberties of individuals. Closely related to this point is the argument that there is always lack of accountability in relation to controlling, monitoring and evaluating data from CCTV systems (Carli, 2008, p. 12). Further, it has been suggested that there is concern that operators of CCTV systems and the authorities involved such as the police may abuse CCTV information for personal or group interests including bribery, court cases and entertainment (Fay, 2004, cited by Carli, 2008, p. 12). In the UK, the collection and use of CCTV images is controlled by the Human Rights Act of 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the CCTV Code of Practice which came into being in 2000 (Cieszynski, 2007, p. 3; Carli, 2008, pp. 4, 12). The intention of both the Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act is to ensure that CCTV systems are properly managed, monitored and regulated (Cieszynski, 2007, p. 4). The Data Protection Act 1998 makes owners of CCTV systems responsible for the management, use and control of the systems, as well as the content or information produced by these systems. The Data Protection Act 1998 also requires all non-domestic CCTV systems to be registered with the Information Commissioner and the Data Protection Agency (Cieszynski, 2007, p. 3; Godfrey, Lawrence & Williams, 2008, p. 147; Ewing, 2010, p. 57). In addition to this, clear signage must be erected in spaces that are covered by CCTV systems to warn people that they are being observed and/or recorded. The signage must indicate the name of the data controller for the system and specify contact information. Furthermore, during the process of registering a system, the data controller is required to state the system’s specific purpose and the duration that the recorded information will be kept. As well, the recorded data must be kept in a secure way and must not be conveyed into the public domain except when it is deemed to be useful for public information or when it is required for criminal investigations (Cieszynski, 2007, p. 3; Home Office, 2013). The restrictions imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998 connote that even though the general feeling is that many people do not mind being monitored provided the use of CCTV enhances security, CCTV cameras must be used with utmost care. The restrictions also seem to curtail the possible misuse of information recorded by a CCTV camera. For instance the law makes it unlawful for tendencies by some authorities to use the information for personal or group gain such as through bribery, entertainment and threats of presenting someone in court because of information purportedly recorded on CCTV. Another point of view is that the display of information regarding the use of a CCTV system in a given space is likely to warn potential criminals that they are being monitored, and hence they are unlikely to commit crime in such a space. But as it was mentioned earlier in the essay, the conclusiveness of this point of view is still subject to discussion. The CCTV Code of Practice gives further directions regarding the use of CCTV. For instance, the Code requires that before any CCTV system is installed, controllers of the system need to assess the impact that the use of such system has on the society and to consider using less privacy intrusive options to prevent crime (House of Lords 2009, p. 21). To exemplify, instead of moving directly to the installation of CCTV cameras in a car park, it is advisable to evaluate whether other less-intrusive security measures such as having improved lighting in the park could achieve the same crime prevention objectives. In addition, the CCTV Code of Practice has a requirement that when used, the CCTV systems should be placed such in such a manner that they only monitor those places which are intended to be watched by the gadgets (House of Lords, 2009, p. 379). Further, it is required that when a camera’s field of view overlaps the surrounding spaces, the controllers should take measures to guarantee privacy. This can be achieved by positioning the camera in such a way that only focuses on a particular area, and where the camera still captures the view of a private area, the owners of the CCTV cameras need to seek written permission from the person who resides in the private area or owns it. Alternatively, the CCTV system owners are required to deploy electronic or physical image masking mechanisms to ensure that the cameras do not intrude into the private spaces (House of Lords, 2009, p. 379). The other questions of whether closely monitoring people through CCTV cameras can help to prevent crime, whether CCTV technology fulfils the role it is supposed to play, and whether is it being used in the right way can be answered by further scrutinising the details of the CCTV Code of Practice in relation to the use of CCTV. Notably, it is important to evaluate the reason why controllers of CCTV systems are required to assess the impact of using CCTV cameras and possibly think of using other less intrusive crime deterrence alternatives. According to House of Lords (2009), the reason for this is that research has established that CCTV systems may not at all times be the most effective strategy for averting or detecting crime. And since the use of CCTV is growing exponentially throughout the UK, it is worthwhile that those utilising the systems do so in a proportionate and responsible manner (p. 21). These regulations have several implications. First is that although the CCTV system can help to prevent crime, it is not in itself a panacea for prevention of all crimes. Secondly, the regulations suggest that CCTV systems need to be used only where they are necessary, and since they are likely to be subject to misuse by those who operate or own them, their use needs to be balanced and responsible. The following section thus discusses the limits and vulnerabilities CCTV technologies with regard to their use as tools for preventing crime. Limits and Vulnerabilities CCTV Cameras As it has already been observed, the CCTV Code of Practice was legislated because of the realisation that CCTV systems are not that much effective in preventing crime, and as such, they should only be used when it is really necessary and in the right manner to limit intrusion into people’s privacy. Even though various authorities such as NACRO and the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention have recognised some of the benefits of using CCTV, such as deterrence, self-deployment, encouraging self-discipline by people, and detection of crime (Armitage, 2002, p. 2; Woodhouse, 2010, pp. 3– 5), it is evident that there still are some reservations regarding CCTV deployment. In particular, studies by the Home Office have shown that the impact of CCTV is variable (Woodhouse, 2010) and this is in concurrence with the discussion in this essay so far. It is thus important to point out some of the limits and vulnerabilities of using CCTV. To start with, it is noted (Laycock, 2013, p. 20) that when CCTV cameras were first introduced in buildings in the UK, perpetrators of crime donned big hats to avoid detection. However, criminals later learnt that CCTV images were too poor that hats were not necessary to conceal them. Nonetheless, as technology has been enhanced, criminals have come up with other methods of masking themselves. This means that the practices and policies of crime control need to be incessantly changing as offender behaviour continues to do. One of the examples of studies conducted to evaluate the capabilities of CCTV is the study conducted in 2007 by a German transit authority (Lanier & Henry 2010, p. 88). The authority used the Berlin subway system to test whether a 24-hour CCTV monitoring of the subway stations would lower crimes such as vandalism and assault and discovered that the number of crimes somewhat increased. In addition, the CCTV cameras did not contribute to significant detection since the quality of the images recorded was poor and crime perpetrators acted off camera. Lanier and Henry (2010) also indicate that in Britain, even though there are about 4.2 million CCTV cameras in use, the devices make very modest contribution to crime prevention. At the same time, detection is not improved because the quality of images is commonly poor, and there are limited resources to review the long hours of footage recorded. Yet getting a better view of the different scenes captured by CCTV cameras requires deployment of more devices, each recording at different angles – which means even more footage to view. These two examples show some of the key limits and vulnerabilities associated with using CCTV, not to mention the fact that the law in the UK requires CCTV owners to be careful not to intrude into people’s personal privacy. The examples compare markedly with other studies which have established that the use of CCTV has a minimal impact on crime (Hallsworth, 2005, p. 151; Lab, 2013). Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has argued that although CCTV use offers some assistance in preventing crime, the impact is not much significant, yet there are concerns that the systems cause intrusion into people’s privacy. Notably, some authorities say that CCTV is beneficial for its crime deterrence effects, self-deployment capabilities, encouraging self-discipline by people, and helping in detection of crime. But few studies support this argument; in fact, many research findings indicate that the impact of using CCTV to prevent crime is not significant. On realising that CCTV may not always be the most effective strategy for averting or detecting crime, laws in the UK require people to be informed about areas being monitored by CCTV cameras and that such cameras should not be used to intrude in private spaces. It has also been discussed that even though many people in the UK are willing to be monitored using CCTV as long as doing so guarantees their safety, widespread surveillance of people through these devices can have a disciplinary effect on those who have no intent to do any wrongdoing. CCTV cameras thus come out as a technology that does little in preventing crime and which therefore needs to be used responsibly in terms of controlling, monitoring and evaluating the data from CCTV systems to avoid intrusion into people’s privacy. References Armitage, A. (2002). To CCTV or not to CCTV? A review of current research into the effectiveness of CCTV systems in reducing crime. NACRO, May 2002. Retrieved 23 April 2014, http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fepic.org%2Fprivacy%2Fsurveillance%2Fspotlight%2F0505%2Fnacro02.pdf&ei=iq5XU4rPGMmX1AWe4oGIDg&usg=AFQjCNH6OLJUh5gG3a152OG2dQaxdE3YeQ&sig2=2iHvg_7LavjV7Vbp6deAOw&bvm=bv.65177938,d.Yms Arrington, R. L. (2007). Crime prevention: The law enforcement officer's practical guide. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Carli, V. (2008). Assessing CCTV as an effective safety and management tool for crime-solving, prevention and reduction. Comparative Analysis Report, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. Montreal, December 2008. Retrieved 22 April 2014, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crime-prevention-intl.org%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2FPublications%2FAssessing_CCTV_as_an_effective_safety_and_management_tool_ANG.pdf&ei=ZSNWU7yKLquR0QXb7YG4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGNJM1oaZ8UypSxxv5K3TD093BZWA&sig2=8WLx5_4bAVsrk8vd68QbcQ Cieszynski, J. (2007). Closed circuit television (3rd edition). Oxford: Newnes. Coaffee, J. (2009). Terrorism, risk and the global city: Towards urban resilience. London: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Crawford, A. (2009). Situating crime prevention policies in comparative perspective: Policy travels, transfer and translation. In A. Crawford (Ed.), Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective (pp. 1–37). London: Willan Publishing Dubbeld, L. (2003). Observing bodies. Camera surveillance and the significance of the body. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 151–162. Edwards, L. (2005). Switching off the surveillance society? Legal regulations of CCTV in the United Kingdom. In S. Nouwt, B. R. de Vries & C. Prins (Eds.), Reasonable expectations of privacy? Eleven country reports on camera surveillance and workplace privacy (pp. 91–114). Cambridge, UK: TMC ASSER Press. Ewing, K. D. (2010). Surveillance and the right to privacy. In Bonfire of the liberties: New labour, human rights, and the rule of law (pp. 53–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Godfrey, B. S., Lawrence, P., & Williams, C. A. (2008). History and crime. London: SAGE Publications Limited. Hallsworth, S. (2005). Street crime. London: Willan Publishing. Home Office (2013). Surveillance camera code of practice. Paper Presented to Parliament Pursuant to Section 30 (1) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, June 2013. House of Lords (2009). Surveillance: Citizens and the state. 2nd Report of Session 2008–09 by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. Retrieved 22 April 2014, from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=YTdWrX-4qAIC&pg=PA378&dq=uk+cctv+code+of+practice+2000&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CVRWU46sK-_I0AXK2IHoBA&ved=0CHcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=uk%20cctv%20code%20of%20practice%202000&f=false Lab, S. P. (2013). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and evaluations (8th edition). Oxford: Newnes. Lanier, M. M., & Henry, S. (2010). Essential criminology (3rd edition). Boulder: Westview Press. Laycock, G. (2013). Defining crime science. In M. J. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 3–26). London: Routledge. National Community Crime Prevention Programme (n.d.). CCTV as a crime prevention measure. Retrieved 21 April 2014, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CIUBEBYwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crimeprevention.gov.au%2FNationalCommunityCrimePreventionProgramme%2FDocuments%2FTip_Sheet_5.pdf&ei=-AdVU8O5CbGw7AaYw4HYCA&usg=AFQjCNGg3RVHk3GARS6sHVOYJEGmWWHc0w&sig2=nLqdyDLKaMXpodVeMLPB8A Siegel, L. (2011). Criminology: The core. Melmont, CA: South-Western Cengage Learning. William, C., & Webster, R. (2007). Myths, rhetoric and policy in the information age: the case of closed circuit television. In D. Griffin, P. Trevorrow & E. Halpin (Eds.), Developments in e-government: A critical analysis (pp. 16–30). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Woodhouse, J. (2010). CCTV and its effectiveness in tackling crime. House of Commons. Retrieved 21 April 2014, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN05624.pdf&ei=-AdVU8O5CbGw7AaYw4HYCA&usg=AFQjCNGIb_DQCrVj3IxGWCMNRDGYmROlQg&sig2=BX20TJ9MHOwVDRygQ8ewKg Read More