Technology and Surveilance in the Urban City

Surveillance has been around for many decades. Since World War I both sides of the war were watching and trying to gather information on the enemyÐŽ¦s position; a task that humans had to physically carry out. This let them anticipate movements and counterattack appropriately. Since that time, technology has advanced at a swift pace and we are now at a stage where satellites can pinpoint and take pictures of objects the size of cars from space. It was thus inevitable that video surveillance would eventually find its way into our cities. The use of Closed Circuit Television has become increasingly popular over the past decade. The rapid advancements in technology have made it easier and more cost effective to install this type of system anywhere. Shopping malls, banks, stores, parking lots, and even streets are now equipped with cameras that are constantly monitoring activity. Without a doubt, the law enforcement agencies embrace this technology as one more tool in their crime prevention arsenal. Cameras increase the effectiveness of the police force, allowing them to send officers where they are needed the most. Traffic control cameras eliminate the need for high-speed chases by following the suspect on the video monitors. Criminals are also more likely to confess to a crime knowing that they are caught on tape, furthermore it is easier to identify and hunt for the criminal. Many cities have, and are, experimenting with this technology. London, England is an example of a city that has had success with CCTV on public streets. There is evidence from studies like London that most citizens do not feel violated and embrace this technology as a way of controlling crime. This technology is gaining popularity not only in Britain but the world over. Clearly, properly implemented CCTV can be a very beneficial tool in controlling crime in our cities. It is only a matter of time before its use becomes widespread.

It is well documented that video surveillance began in Britain in 1986 (Nieto, 1997). A famous success story of CCTV occurred in a shopping mall in Bootle, near Liverpool (Geake, 1993). A two year old boy had wandered from his motherÐŽ¦s side and was later found murdered. The media broadcast images of two youths apparently leading the young child away from the mall. Within days of their video being shown, arrests were made. Sixteen years later, there arenÐŽ¦t many places you can go without being caught on a camera in Britain. There are between 1.5 and 2 million CCTV cameras installed and it is estimated that on an average day, a person may be filmed by up to 300 different cameras (Strieff, 2002). This growth is due largely to the support from the government, which has invested 9 billion over the last 15 years (Strieff, 2002). This influx of money and interest has brought Britain where it is today; a long way from the first three cameras installed in KingÐŽ¦s Lynn.

KingÐŽ¦s Lynn is a town in Norfolk, Britain. It was here that in 1986, three cameras were installed just outside the town center. Their impact was immediate. Fifty-eight crimes were recorded in the year prior to the cameras. In the two years following their installation, there were no crimes at all, and in the next two years only six (Geake, 1993). With this success came the expansion of the cameras up to 45. They are all controlled from a central location, which is equipped with a direct line to the police station. They also have a direct video feed in case the police request video footage or images. The police in KingÐŽ¦s Lynn argue that the cameras give them a better idea of what they are getting into. They can prepare and handle the problem in a more effective and safer manner if they know status of the current situation. With this kind of results, it is not surprising that 96% of the residents interviewed by the local newspaper said they were happy with the cameras (Geake, 1993). Evidently, CCTV has had a positive impact on this community, which was the basis for the growth in the rest of the country

Britain is not the only country experimenting with CCTV, the United States also has cities in various stages of implementation. One example is Newark, New Jersey, which installed a CCTV system in 1991. It consists of six cameras overlooking the cityÐŽ¦s business district. It is maintained by a private security system but is monitored by police. In this city, both the police and the local businesses support this project. It is a good system for a city that has to provide a lot of services with little resources. No official data has been recorded in Newark, however, according to local police, car theft in the downtown district has declined significantly since the CCTV implementation. Furthermore, with the urban dwellers feeling safer, there has been commercial growth in the business district over the four years since the installation (Nieto, 1997). Although not as extensive as Britain, other countries also have CCTV in some shape or form. Canada has installed many red light cameras, which is the equivalent of having a police officer standing at the intersection all day. The principality of Morocco claims that ÐŽ§ÐŽKif a crime is committed and is not caught on video, the police are not doing their jobÐŽKЎЁ (Nieto, 1997). Ireland, France, Spain and Russia are also countries that are using CCTV. In all these countries, and many more to come, one thing is certain: the use CCTV will continue increasing over the next decade or more.

For the use of CCTV to increase, public perception is a major factor that needs to be addressed. After all, one must not underestimate the power of public opinion. A study conducted by Clarke and Hough concluded that ÐŽ§ÐŽKa patrol officer in London could expect to pass within one hundred yards of a burglary in progress once every eight years and even then he or she would probably be unaware that it was taking placeÐŽKЎЁ (p 7, Taylor, 1999). However, even with this proven inefficiency of the police patrols, the people still feel safe when they see one. The same logic applies to CCTV. It is constantly patrolling and giving people a sense of security even if statistically it is not doing anything. It also sends the message to potential criminals that if they are going to try something, chances are they are going to be caught on video. It doesnÐŽ¦t matter if the cameras are working or being monitored, as long as the public thinks that they are doing their job. Moreover, the diagram below shows that citizens in Britain are in favour of CCTV. The increased sense of security by the general public results in many positive effects. There can be a growth in the local economy due to the increased pedestrian traffic in an area, people can get out more and no longer run through a notorious neighbourhood, and there can be a general increase in the publicÐŽ¦s sense of security in their city.