CCTV Controversy? Or Not?
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Recently, I was having lunch with a business owner, and the subject of crime prevention versus CCTV systems for small business owners was discussed. She expressed concern that business owners may misunderstand the article posted by (The Toronto Star Newspaper) thestar.com. Wherein, it was suggested that “Closed Circuit TV [is] Not Reducing Crime” in Britain. For readers not aware of this article, read the the snippet below, with a link to the full article.
“…Britain’s opposition Liberal Democrats last fall concluded that London’s $400 million system of publicly funded CCTV cameras is virtually useless in crime reduction after the party used the Freedom of Information Act to collate and compare crime data from the City of London and its 32 boroughs…” Source: http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/422317
It’s important that business owners realize surveillance is only part of the equation when working to reduce crime in any nation (or business). To be effective, people should be educated in a manner that does not predispose their behaviours to crime related ones.
Obviously, this is not a realistic option for business owners. However an experienced security consulted is able to provide solutions that can help prevent unacceptable behaviours.
If as the article claims “…There’s no fear of CCTV. Why don’t people fear it? (They think) the cameras are not working…”. Then the right question should be “Why?” The public relations aspect is a fine line. People need to respect the Police. Fear, to some degree, more or less, is always an innate factor of respect. If Police are respected too much, there’s a political outcry and Police activities (such as CCTV follow-up) become more constrained and curtailed. Reduced respect has the opposite effect, in that Police and police related actives become and object of destructive criticism, wherein perpetrators increase their activities as they may be more likely to avoid “penalties”; leading to a crime level in excess of the manpower available to handle it. So (as crazy as this may sound) it follows that some business owners need to address the PR issues of surveillance as well. The public should be aware that they are under surveillance when in a public place, in the sense that the camera’s greatest power is a DETERRENT first, an then a tool after (with which to apprehend perpetrators and/or mitigate losses) . I get the sense from the article that the focus is on apprehension and loss mitigation, when it should really be on crime avoidance
Needless to say the impetuous of any security solution, should be focused towards the proactive; which can be addressed by a security consultant who may be best able to highlight problem areas, making them predictable and therefore preventable. As such, the article seems to make one think that perhaps not all the components of this (CCTV) solution were fully available or operating?
Think about it… What makes more sense to me as a business owner…
A) Having a camera that will capture a crime against person or property, and using the evidence gathered during court proceedings, etc. And or supporting an insurance claim?
B) Or… Having a visible obvious CCTV camera that might deter the criminal act altogether (the perpetrator may choose to go to an easier mark)?
I’ll pick option B!
This leads to another thought, perhaps the CCTV system in London is so successful that they are experiencing an issue wherein perpetrators really have no better places to go (they all have cameras!) and are having difficulty finding areas with little or no surveillance. The psychology of crime related behaviour is so vast and complex I could not possibly touch on all the salient issues with regards to it, within this post. Suffice it to say, criminal behaviours in many cases always seek a venue of expression and again, surveillance systems which seek to deter such behaviours are at best a tool to apprehend and mitigate loss when the area surveilled is excessively saturated with cameras, etc. As such, greater Police manpower would be required to apprehend perpetrators. If this does not happen, it’s quite conceivable that individuals may surmise “…the cameras are not working…”, carry on…
I think politics is a component in the “debate”. $400 million is a sizable political issue. What I find alarming; if the article is based on facts, then how much higher must the crime rate be without surveillance?
The old adage seems true in this case, about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing; which should be a “Call to Action”, to business owners that includes the CFO to the CEO and IT security managers, that an emphasis be in place to facilitate an appropriate needs assessment. This assessment, not only includes physical hardware but must incorporate standardized procedures and protocols, that must be followed thereby alleviating misinterpretation in times of emergency.
At what cost do you, the business, owner deem appropriate to ensure the safety for you, your employees and customers; and the continued productivity for your company?
Well thought out perspective. I think one issue business owners should be aware of is that the days of bars, window coating, etc. are over. Such visible security is a clear sign to would be perpetrators that there’s something of value for them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting everything should be hidden either. Instead I’m suggesting that visible systems such as CCTV cameras clearly say:
“I have a record of you, that will be followed up if needed. This is not the time to participate in a crime.”
Older methods such as bars, etc. instead may give the following message:
“There’s something of value here… and there is probably nobody around when you get past the bars.”