Saturday, November 8, 2008
CCTV is not the best way to combat crime
British Columbia’s provincial government is planning to spend one million dollars on a pilot CCTV project to help combat crime in Vancouver, Kelowna and Surrey.
According to the province’s Solicitor General, John van Dongen:
Technologies such as CCTV can greatly assist the police and the prosecution in bringing offenders to justice. We believe CCTV can be an important tool in catching criminals and improving public safety.
If we look at the results of CCTV use in the U.K., van Dongen is vastly over-stating its effectiveness. The U.K. began experimenting with CCTV in the 1970’s and its use has grown to more than 4 million cameras across the UK, or at least one for every 14 people. In 2002, it was estimated that the average London resident was captured on camera about 300 times per day. Since the mid-1990’s billions of pounds have been spent on CCTV technology in the UK.
Yet, despite all this, a recent report from New Scotland Yard indicated that only about 3% of crimes were solved by the use of CCTV. Furthermore, a report by the Home Office in 2002, which reviewed 18 other studies on the effectiveness of CCTV, found just a 4% overall reduction in crime when CCTV cameras were used.
Given these results, the evidence tells us that the return on investment with CCTV is far too low to warrant the expense. One study indicates that there would have been a greater reduction in crime if those billions of pounds had been spent on more cops walking the beat. Jonathan Klick, a law professor at Florida State University, and Alexander Tabarrok of George Mason University, studied the increased police presence in key areas of Washington D.C. during high terror alert days and found a 15 percent reduction in crime.
The added and less quantifiable cost of CCTV is the loss of privacy to citizens and the negative impact on civil liberties. B.C.’s Solicitor General said he intended to work with the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner “to establish clear rules for the collection, management and protection of information from the cameras.” However, Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis said he learned about the program a mere fifteen minutes before the news conference announcing the CCTV pilot project.
BC residents and politicians who are concerned about crime and public safety should advocate for more police officers, community policing programs and proven crime prevention measures (such as improved lighting) instead of throwing away millions in tax dollars in the creation of a surveillance society.
Related posts:
Smile, You're on Candid Camera
Cops Want Covert Cameras in Public Places
Homeland Security's Chertoff: more surveillance, less privacy
Friday, May 11, 2007
Cops want covert cameras in public places
Police in Victoria, British Columbia want to install security cameras in public areas around the provincial capital in a bid to fight crime and reduce vandalism. I wrote an earlier post about the plethora of surveillance cameras in public areas and motorways in the United Kingdom and the concern that this was creating a “surveillance society” there.What’s different about the Victoria proposal is that while cameras in the U.K are visible to the public, police in Victoria want the cameras to be hidden. The rationale for hiding the cameras from public view is unclear. Visible cameras are designed to serve as a deterrent to crime, with the criticism that they only serve to move crime along to other areas. Hidden cameras are designed to catch criminals in the act, and could be argued to have a wider impact in deterring crime, as no one knows for sure where the cameras are located and when they are being watched.
Meanwhile, in a six-month pilot project, police in Toronto are extending the use of visible closed-circuit cameras from the downtown into residential areas with high crime.
"Wherever the analysis tells us that violence is likely to take place...those
are the areas we will use the technology," said police chief, Bill Blair.
Back in the U.K, police are building on their massive network of fixed cameras, by carrying camcorders with them on the beat in an increased effort to cut crime and reduce "anti-social behaviour. "
Sgt Craig Donald, of the INA's Safer Community Team, said: "Equipping officers with hand-held cameras has had great success elsewhere with reductions in anti-social behaviour and crime being recorded.
"It's a very effective way to secure evidence to support a prosecution and it's certainly a deterrent as people don't usually want to commit a crime if they think there is a chance they could be identified at a later stage."
The reactions from citizens in every jurisdiction where police surveillance cameras are being used is inevitably mixed. Some support the cameras as they believe they will improve social order and reduce crime, and besides, they’re not doing anything wrong. Others object to the intrusion into their privacy and how the very presence of the cameras may alter their decisions. When cameras are visible, people can at least choose to avoid them. Hidden cameras have a greater chilling effect on the average citizen, as they never know when or where they could be filmed.
What if you’re a gay man who regularly attends a local gay bar? Or, you are a concerned citizen who wants to participate in public protest rally against a police or government decision? Or, you’re seeking medical attention and you don’t want anyone to know about it? Would the presence of visible security cameras, or the threat of being monitored by hidden cameras make you think twice before participating in any of these lawful activities?
While the evidence to support the claims that cameras reduce crime is in dispute, the use of this surveillance technology by police is here to stay and citizens need to be informed about how and why it is being used. Police must be held to the highest standard of accountability to ensure transparency and to ensure that privacy laws are not violated. In our efforts to reduce crime and improve social order, we should not trade away our rights to privacy and to participate fully in society without fear.
So, as you go about your business today - do you really know if you’re being watched?
Monday, April 2, 2007
GMail Paper .... for some, it's no joke
I’m not sure how long this link will be available, but the gist of Gmail Paper is that you can click and print as much as you want on-line and Google will sort your print-outs and deliver them directly to you so you can have the satisfaction of maintaining a paper trail:Everyone loves Gmail. But not everyone loves email, or the digital era. What ever happened to stamps, filing cabinets, and the mailman?
Well, you asked for it, and it’s here. We’re bringing it back.
A New Button
Now in Gmail, you can request a physical copy of any message with the click of a button, and we'll send it to you in the mail.
Simplicity Squared
Google will print all messages instantly and prepare them for delivery. Allow 2-4 business days for a parcel to arrive via post.
Total Control
A stack of Gmail Paper arrives in a box at your doorstep, and it’s yours to keep forever. You can read it, sort it, search it, touch it. Or even move it to the trash—the real trash. (Recycling is encouraged.)
Keep it Secret, Keep it Safe
Google takes privacy very seriously. But once your email is physically in your hands, it's as secure as you want to make it.
Google’s April Fool’s day joke is hardly a laughing matter for those of us responsible for an organization’s document management. Truth is, many of us are as addicted to paper as we are to e-mail, IM and our cellphones. This issue surfaced last week, when I was reviewing the status of paper records with staff at work, along with some reps from the company that provides the electronic document and record management system (EDRMS) that we will be implementing. Apparently, staff had been discussing the new system and many assumed that we would just continue to retain the paper versions in addition to the electronic copies on the EDRMS.
The fact is that many people are just not comfortable with the seemingly ephemeral quality of electronic documents which they feel could be too easily deleted or “lost”, while somehow the paper copy provides a sense of “permanence”. This, despite the fact that paper documents can easily be misfiled, lost, destroyed or altered, yet it seems the ability to hold something tangible and “real” in the hand provides a false sense of security that the electronic document cannot.
In British Columbia, the Electronic Transactions Act provides the framework for the acceptance of electronic documents in lieu of the original paper copy if:
- there exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the record in
electronic form, and;
- the record in electronic form is accessible by the person to whom it is provided and is capable of being retained by that person in a manner usable for subsequent reference.
- if there exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the record … i.e. the record has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the introduction of changes that arise in the normal course of communication, storage and display
- on provision or receipt of the record, the information, if any, that identifies the origin and destination of the record and the date and time when it was sent or received is also retained.
These standards serve to ensure the reliability and integrity of the electronic version of the document. The challenge is to build these standards into the EDRMS and to ensure that system backups are secure and redundant. Then it becomes a matter of educating employees so that they can let go of their “security blanket” and have the same level of confidence with the electronic document as they do with the paper version.
Sadly, I suspect that if Google were serious about offering the GMail Paper service, they would be flooded with customers ...
