[From Baltimore Crime Beat: Police surveillance cameras - Baltimoresun.com]
Some comments from Baltimore regarding their surveillance system, which were inspired by the study of San Francisco cameras. Here are some snippets:
Issue of image quality:
Yes, cops love to release videos showing crimes, and we call watch and are horrified. But it’s often hard to identify an acutal suspect from the video, and more often than not, only a part or the aftermath of a crime is caught on the tape.
That leaves attorneys to argue and jurors to decide what actually happened. In one case city prosecutors described to me, a witness testified to being one place on the street when the video clearly showed her standing someplace else when she saw one man shoot two other men. Defense attorneys seized on this to question her integrity, but did convict in the end.
Cameras or Cops:
“When the cameras were announced by then Mayor O’Malley and brought into the city, no one consulted with our office on how to use the cameras effectively to bolster prosecutions,” Margaret T. Burns, the spokeswoman for the city State’s Attorney’s Office, told me. “They were viewed by the administration at the time as a quick fix to violent crime.” Cooperation has improved, but Burns said questions remain. She said community members continue to tell State’s Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy, “We would just like another police officer.”
Cameras as investigative tools:
“Our preliminary results are similiar to the preliminary results in San Francisco. The cameras are not always relevant to the violent crime that is being prosecuted. They are helpful investigative tools. The footage is often used to point us in the right direction. Whether or not they have an overall affect on violent crime in the city, whether or not they are cost effective, are things we can’t speak to, but they are questions that have been raised.”
Role of Live Monitoring:
In addition, Baltimore’s live monitoring has made the cameras an effective tool to engage in targeted enforcement and to capture and sometimes even prevent violent crimes in progress. I think the San Francisco study says that camera footage was only used to help solve or prosecute 5 or 6 cases of violent crime since 2005. Baltimore has been far more progressive in that area.
rshah Other Cities, Policy
[From Chicago crime jumps in 2008; murders spike :: The SouthtownStar :: News ]
Here are the updated stats:
2003 – 598
2004 – 448
2005 – 448
2006 – 467
2007 – 445
2008 – 510
For the year, murder was up 14.6 percent, while robbery was up 7.8 percent and burglary up 4.8 percent. Overall, violent crime was up 2.1 percent and property crime up 2.6 percent, with a total increase in crime of 2.5 percent.
Police said one way they plan to get crime down in 2009 is with curfew enforcement, special enforcement units, cameras on street corners and various types of awareness campaigns. They also said more than 2,500 volunteers joined CAPS (Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy) in 2008. (My emphasis)
rshah Chicago
[From You Are Being Watched]
The ACLU has launched a new web site focused on video surveillance. It does a pretty good job of providing resources on the issues around cameras, state news on cameras, and a map showing some of the areas with government surveillance. If anyone needs a starting point on government video surveillance, this is as good as any.
While I don’t share the ACLU’s views on video surveillance, I am happy there is one place will all the documents/links. I have been wishing for a site like this that lets us think about this issue on a state by state basis as well as nationally. I also think the ACLU’s site may serve as foreshadowing to an increased emphasis on video surveillance issues in the next few years.
They have news section which hopefully will stay current (but it doesn’t have an RSS feed!).
rshah Policy
[From In Hard Focus: Getting San Fran Surveillance Right] & [From Schneier on Security: Two Security Camera Studies]
The San Francisco story has generated comments in the blogosphere. While I have not yet read the study, I wanted to comment on a few points.
My general impression (before the report came out) was that San Francisco was a good example of how not to do surveillance. Two significant points here are the lack of real time monitoring and the poor infrastructure. I will have more once I read the report.
Steve over at in Hard Focus points out a couple of things. First, he goes with the glass half full approach in reading the results regarding the effectiveness of the cameras. Next he emphasize that San Francisco should consider improvements in the technology in areas such as image quality, data storage, networked systems, and analytics to make it easier to use the footage.
Schneier reports on a study of Scotland Yard, which shows that “in 90 murder cases over a one year period, CCTV was used in 86 investigations, and senior officers said it helped to solve 65 cases by capturing the murder itself on film, or tracking the movements of the suspects before or after an attack.” (From the Telegraph) This is an interesting study, because it provides a different rationale for supporting cameras. The traditional focus has been that cameras can deter or reduce crime. It will take a bit more analysis and probing to think through this study and figure out exactly what is the contribution of the cameras. (Consider the economic cost of the cameras, whether the crimes would have solved through other forms of evidence, . . .) Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea that needs further research and thought.
rshah Policy
[From San Francisco Chronicle: Spy cameras no help in violent crime]
I haven’t had a chance to read the study, which is available from the Samuelson clinic. But here are some tidbits from the Chronicle.
A long-awaited study of San Francisco’s installation of surveillance cameras in high-crime areas shows that the effort fails in its primary goal of reducing homicide and other violent crime, but succeeds in reducing such offenses as burglary, pickpocketing and purse-snatching. The study found that the program, started by Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2005, is hampered by a lack of training and oversight, a failure to integrate footage with other police tactics, inadequate technology, and what may be fundamental weaknesses of cameras as devices to stop violent crime.
The 184-page study, which was called for by the Board of Supervisors in 2006, was conducted by the UC Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society. It represents one of the most thorough reports on public surveillance, a trend that has swept the nation in recent years.
The report was critical of the way a hodgepodge of city agencies combined to administer the program. It said the program had no dedicated manager, and that officers and attorneys got no training on how to view the footage. The clarity of the footage, the study said, could be greatly improved if San Francisco bought more data storage space.
The report raises the idea of using the program more aggressively, perhaps integrating cameras with gunshot detection devices called ShotSpotters or buying so-called smart cameras that are capable of sounding an alarm if a gun is brandished, a fence is jumped, or a person falls down.
rshah Other Cities, Policy
[From CCTV camera pushes crime into blind spot @ SecurityInfoWatch.com]
A story that illustrates the classic displacement effect. This occurred in Flint, MI using a 2 camera system.
To those living in view of the police security camera at Cecil and Jewell drives on the city’s north side, the camera has really cleaned up the neighborhood.
But residents who live just out of the camera’s range tell a completely different story.
“Now what happened is the drug dealers have went on the side streets because the camera just does not get down those side streets,” said Curtis Baker, president of the Northeast Carpenter Road Neighborhood Association. “We have a drug house on just about every street now.”
rshah Other Cities, Policy
[From WBBM 780 - Homicide Jump Concerns Police Commissioner]
Another story I have been following is the connections between the camera systems and the murder rate in Chicago. These are numbers updated for 2008.
2003 – 598
2004 – 448
2005 – 448
2006 – 467
2007 – 445
2008 – 508
rshah Chicago
[From Crime-fighting cameras a bust | CharlotteObserver.com]
A few months ago, I pointed out the problems in Chicago with Project Shield. A similar occurence has happened in Durham, NC.
DURHAM Police hoped that the cameras lined up along Angier Avenue would be the latest technology to help them fight crime. They had visions of not only capturing criminals in the act on video, but also controlling the cameras remotely from police cars to keep ever-present eyes on the street.
But so far, after months of work, the video surveillance program has not produced one arrest and its future is uncertain.
Documents obtained by The News & Observer – e-mails between city officials and TelePort Systems Inc., the Baltimore based company that installed the system – detail a project filled with missed deadlines, recurring technological problems and complaints from police officers and city officials.
TelePort’s contract ended in October after the city spent over $90,000 on the project. What the city got was a system of 13 cameras where only six are used for their intended purpose.
Camera systems are complex from a technological, economic, and organizational perspective. Cities that don’t remember this will run into problems using cameras.
rshah Other Cities
Recent Comments