London’s Surveillance Fails - Only 1 Crime Solved per 1000 Cameras

http://singularityhub.com/2009/09/01/londons-surveillance-fails-only-1-crime-solved-per-1000-cameras/

by kkleiner • 17 years ago

32 22 17 years ago

singularityhub.com

Janzert• 17 years ago

Bruce Schneier also had some commentary on this http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/08/on_londons_sur...

rokhayakebe• 17 years ago

What about the drop in crime rate?

sh1mmer• 17 years ago

That's a good point. CCTV may act as a deterrent.

It make me wonder if crime moves somewhere without CCTV (in which case we'd need a 100% coverage to win, not a good proposition).

Or, perhaps, it's not a zero-sum game. If many criminals are not "professionals", then CCTV could dramatically reduce crimes of opportunity if it does act as deterrent.

To analyze it right, I'd want to see if petty theft and other crimes of opportunity were reduced, rather than crimes like street brawling. Lumping all crime together when some are unlikely to be influenced by the cameras (because they are motivated by emotion rather than profit, for example).

anamax• 17 years ago

The only reference to any change in crime rate is "In fact, besides parking lots, few locations seem to have lower crime rates thanks to the cameras dotted around the city." There's no other mention of parking lots in the article.

Is there a significant drop in London's crime rate that isn't seen in comparable areas that are known to not have cameras?

TomOfTTB2• 17 years ago

Apparently Crime in London is at a ten year low: http://urdunews.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/london-crime-rate-d...

But the police don't seem to be giving CCTV credit for that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

So I think it's one of those "draw your own conclusion" situations.

bjelkeman-again• 17 years ago

If there was any discernible drop in crime rates, rest assured that they would be shouting this from the roof tops.

dangoldin• 17 years ago

But how many additional crimes were reduced?

Maybe the people who are committing these crimes know that they are under surveillance and do it intelligently.

A lot of other criminals may be aware of the surveillance cameras and not even bother to commit a crime.

uuilly• 17 years ago

Indeed, not unlike the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Musashi• 17 years ago

What the article has missed is the fact that these cameras and their operators are less interested in crime and far more interested in fine-able offenses such as motorists parking incorrectly; stopping in the wrong place; driving too fast; people putting their rubbish out on the wrong day; people putting the wrong rubbish in the recycle bins; or whatever else they can bill you for to pay off the bank-bailouts.

Local councils are milking these cameras for all that they are worth. Most of the cameras aren't even watching crime spots, but are instead focused on the roads at stop signs etc. Given the added revenue - irrespective of the crime prevention stats - those cameras are here to stay.

TomOfTTB2• 17 years ago

Well but that's sort of the point. I think 99% of the people on earth would be in favor of camera setups like this if there was some way to guarantee it would only be used to catch murderers and rapists. But it's a slippery slope and once you put that power in the Government's hands they will almost certainly abuse it.

You're probably right about the cameras being a permanent fixture in London. But the fact that Government officials are using them more for minor infractions than serious crime is a lesson that may prevent setups like this in other places.

axod3• 17 years ago

Definitely. Why solve crimes when you can catch people going to the toilet on the street and fine them each £60 or whatever it is.

You know there's a good reason to not live in cities. Move out to the country! Do what they hell you want! :)

swombat• 17 years ago

I guess this means that we only need 60 billion cameras in the UK to prevent all crime (assuming every citizen is a criminal, which seems pretty close to the government approach).

axod3• 17 years ago

Lord knows we're all sinners!

The worst thing IMHO is speed cameras. 99% of the population breaks the speed limit regularly. Catching a random part of those on speed cameras and fining adding points to license etc is a really bad way to go about things.

Silhouette3• 17 years ago

> 99% of the population breaks the speed limit regularly.

They really don't, though of course those who do speed routinely like to think that "everyone does it".

I'm no fan of our often arbitrary speed limits, nor of automated enforcement of them, nor of the penalty system our laws provide to deal with motoring offences in general. But seriously, spewing silly numbers does nothing to advance the legitimate arguments in favour of improving these things, so please don't do that.

gscott• 17 years ago

When you have as many cameras as they do that sounds like a pretty successful statistic without hiring.30 cent an hour Chinese workers to watch your day-behind video footage all day.

Silhouette3• 17 years ago

I can't say I'm surprised. In the UK but outside London, a group I belong to suffered a significant theft (a few thousand pounds, IIRC) from a local building. There is only one entrance to the building that is normally open, there is only one road leading up to it, that road is very quiet, and there are CCTV cameras around the end of the road. When the theft was reported, within 24 hours of when it must have taken place, the police didn't even seem interested enough to look up the camera footage.

tnovelli• 17 years ago

Too much information, that's the problem.

Just wait until people are actively spamming the surveillance system :-)

London’s Surveillance Fails - Only 1 Crime Solved per 1000 Cameras

Related Stories