CCTV cameras move crime a few feet down the sidewalk -- study
A fascinating study of security cameras in San Francisco has concluded that any effect on they have on crime is incredibly localized, and they only works on certain kinds of crime -- furthermore, the same number of crimes end up getting committed in the long run, just down the street from the cameras. Still, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vows to continue putting up the little orwellscopes, because they lull people into feeling secure.
Link (via Schneier)Using a complicated method, researchers were able to come up with an average daily crime rate at each location broken out by type of crime and distance from the cameras. They then compared it with the average daily crime rate from the period before the cameras were installed.
They looked at seven types of crime: larcenies, burglaries, motor vehicle theft, assault, robbery, homicide and forcible sex offenses.
The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected - except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.
Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
the latest
latest episodes
So, all we need to do it put up cameras everywhere, right?
There's a fierce debate going on about this news in Scheier's blog. The main question seems to be whether this just shows that you need to have enough cameras so that everywhere is within 250 feet of a camera. Then people would have to leave town to kill each other.
I foresee a boom market in poisons
It would be interesting if fake CCTVs were mixed in, just too see how good criminals are at predicting which ones are real. And fakes are cheaper too. Better yet, make all of them mobile. The place is going to be crawling with mobile observation drones before long, and they're not gong to be any bigger than a bee. "Please be good. The Bees are watching YOU!"
@4 JEFF: Forget bee-sized drones. Let's have big scary-assed floating drones like Ming's assistant from the 1980 version of Flash Gordon -- fully armed, of course, like the original.
Security cameras are reactionary. They don't really address the real problem of crime. If we saw to it that people of color had real hope that would be a big help. Universal health care, good public schools, really stopping drug abuse and putting an end to child abuse would all have far more positive effect than a few cameras.
Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
I guess that could help prove premeditation?
Fallacy of causality? Could it be that the cameras move the crime, or are there other factors involved (types of businesses that use cameras, historical impact on crime patterns [gee, murders happen alot on this corner, I think I'll commit mine a couple blocks away in the hopes of getting away with it], etc.) Hopefully the researchers took this into account
Mounting fake cameras would be a perfect way to normalize the data, if the fakes were mounted at random spots throughout the city or if you could truly blanket the city with fakes...
Dear Jeff:
http://www.bustachange.com/dragonfly-spy-cameras-go-everywhere-insects-can/
So, all we need to do it put up cameras everywhere, right?
I'll have to ask my big brother...
Cory you are confusing cause and effect. People do not move down the block before they kill each other. Drug dealers move down the block to deal away from the cameras. Many of the homicides are from these deals gone awry.
People in comfortable suburbs are welcome to debate the issue in the abstract until the cows come home, but as someone who lives in one of the most crime-ridden areas of SF, I totally support the installation of security cameras.
Using more hidden cameras would eliminate the problem of perps moving out of what they believe is the range of known camera locations. 250-foot range? That means that one or two per block will ensure that my wife doesn't get attacked as she walks home. Not worth it to you? Tough shit.
Yeah, hidden cameras can be effective to ID criminals.
Unless one of these criminals decide to buy a ski mask.
Dear Bric:
It won't work. Once the little bastards have figured out that a ballcap and do-rag over their jaw is all the camo they need, you are back to where you started - except now of course YOUR privacy is gone.
Takuan -- ballcaps and do-rags have never been used as a disguise tactic by urban perps, so far as I know. They would stand out to the cops who patrol the area. Perps are as much identified by their height/build and clothing as they are by their skin color or hair.
What on earth makes you think that I, or anyone else, should have a presumption of privacy on city streets? It's public property, you know. Any citizen is legally entitled to walk up and down your street with a video camera, 24/7 and record you coming and going, hailing a taxi, scratching yourself, whatever. Do you really believe that the police shouldn't have the same right to record public behavior as you or I?
actually, no. There is one hell of a BIG difference between you making home movies and the government surveilling everything you do in public.
I'd like to hear some stats supporting your view.
Actually, yes. Since you assert that there's "a big difference between (me walking up and down your street with my video camera, recording everything I see) and the government surveilling everything you do in public", suppose you explain what that difference is. Really; I'd like to know. Because not only do I suspect that I'll find the explanation novel, but that it won't be Constitutionally supported.
And here's something to work on: when _I_ videotape someone on public property, there are very few legal boundaries as to what I can do with that recording. When the government/law enforcement does the same thing, there are strict legal boundaries as to what they can do with it, from FOIA disclosure to limitations on how long they can keep the recordings.
As much as I hate finding myself in agreement with Takuan, I am.
If you want examples of do-rags and baseball caps, among other tools of disguise, look no further to California's massive gang problems. They are not some underground group of misfits, they are proud, they are strong, and they are dangerous. Often displaying tatoos associated with gangs.
Cops are very much aware of these gangs, and many have argued over the lack of police patrol in neighborhoods containing these gangs. Mostly because of the danger involved, and in some cases, racism.
Surveillence may seem comforting, but that type of thinking that "If you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" is bullshit. It is the same attitude police expect when they ask to search your house with your consent. Why deny them unless you are guilty of something?
Truth is, it is not monitoring crime that we need to worry about, it is our education systems, our availability of after-school programs, increase in psychiatric caring that we need to start funding and other ways of preventing and understanding crime.
Dear Bric:
"there are strict legal boundaries as to what they can do with it, "
The present government of the United States has been operating with out any legal constraints for almost a decade. They can and have done whatever they want with all kinds of illegally acquired data. They've even passed laws pardoning themselves for it.
So you actually think that do-rags and ball caps effectively circumvent police video cameras and allow perps to commit crimes within view of those cameras? How 'bout some evidence to back that up? I don't believe it for a second. And please don't bother describing criminals to me; I can look out of my window right now and describe a half-dozen of them to you.
Cops are aware of the gangs? So what? The issue is whether the cops can be there when the gang members commit crimes. Obviously, they can't always. That's why cameras are a tool, just like stake-outs and undercover disguises are a tool.
"It is the same attitude police expect when they ask to search your house with your consent." NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME. Here's the difference: _Private_ _Public_ Spot the difference? If you were driving 150mph without wearing a seatbelt on private property, no cop in the country could pull you over. Do that on public property, and you're going down.
"Truth is, it is not monitoring crime that we need to worry about, it is our education systems, our availability of after-school programs, increase in psychiatric caring that we need to start funding and other ways of preventing and understanding crime."
Again, the detachment of the suburbs. I assure you: _I_ need to worry about monitoring crime; I live in a crime-ridden neighborhood. And we can worry about finding ways to prevent and understand crime just as soon as we complete those other two categorically impossible goals of "winning the war on terror" and "wiping out poverty".
I live in Dorchester, MA. So do not act like you are the only one who experiences crime.
A murder or shooting happens here almost daily.
Do not assume because I believe in prevention and education I am somewhat less aware of the situation with criminals. I am sure you must live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, but so do I, so do not cast me away as some suburbanite.
And understanding crime is hardly an impossible goal. Right now, we seem only interested in responding and punishing it, which is a problem in and of itself.
And you don't believe disguises are used while committing crimes? In alot of armed robbery cases, especially on banks, the disguise usually connect the criminal to the crime in the end. If you want proof, hell, type robbery and disguise in Google.
"And understanding crime is hardly an impossible goal. Right now, we seem only interested in responding and punishing it, which is a problem in and of itself."
I don't buy that. Sociologists have been studying crime for literally centuries. There's nothing about crime and its causes that's still a mystery. And apologists have been excusing it for decades as well. Remember the 1989 LA riots? How dozens of murders, hundreds of assaults and thousands of other crimes were basically excused away by a lot of people because the criminals were "underprivileged"? So what's the solution -- privilege? There's poverty all over the world, but only in certain places and by certain groups does that translate into a pretext for crime.
"In alot of armed robbery cases, especially on banks, the disguise usually connect the criminal to the crime in the end."
But we're not talking about robbing banks, now are we? We're talking about street crimes. It's _very_ rare for street crimes to involve disguises. Just appearing on the street in disguise is in itself suspicious, and disguises are often awkward and interfere with the commission of crimes. And banks rather go against the previous notions, don't they? After all -- all banks are heavily surveilled. Is that "big brother"? -a violation of your right to privacy? Hardly.
Really -- I'm getting a little tired of people conflating two different things and thinking that the relationship is telling.
Crimes on public property ≠ crimes on private property.
Public surveillance ≠ private surveillance.
Anytime that we can get back to the issue of police cameras as a deterrent to crime on public streets would be fine with me.
"The present government of the United States has been operating with out any legal constraints for almost a decade. They can and have done whatever they want with all kinds of illegally acquired data. They've even passed laws pardoning themselves for it."
Ah, good old overstatement. "Without any legal constraints"? Please. Just because you (and I) don't like the way that this administration has sometimes been able to circumvent the law doesn't mean that it has been able to operate "without any legal constraints". For the vast majority of matters, the rule of law still applies. Do I need to cite examples?
Look: I'm perfectly happy to admit that the government at large, the Bush Administration in specific, law enforcement, the garbage collectors and every other group sometimes manage to get away with malfeasance, but the fact is that the legal system is still largely functional. Slow, somewhat uneven, expensive and frustrating, but largely functional. If it weren't, do you think that we'd even be having this conversation? The police would've already put the cameras up whenever and wherever they wanted, public be damned. The police can't put up such things by fiat. Look at the huge public debate we had over whether or not just to allow traffic cameras!
Police cameras are simply an extension of police patrols. In a perfect world, where crime still existed, there would be a cop car on every block, with two officers in each, looking through binoculars at potential problems, and rushing in and arresting perps, and a few more, walking the beat. Obviously, we don't have the budget or manpower for that. So what is the difference between a camera surveilling a street and a cop surveilling it through his eyes? That's a question that has never been addressed by those who claim that civil liberties are being abridged.
ever played poker? bought a car from a dealer? negotiated a contract or collective agreement?
Civil rights work the same way. Every tiny little scrap you give up "for the greater good" was purchased with blood and tears. Trouble is, no one ever understands until they have the experience ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMEPk6fvpg
"Civil rights work the same way. Every tiny little scrap you give up 'for the greater good' was purchased with blood and tears. Trouble is, no one ever understands until they have the experience ..."
That seems to me to be utterly naive. But let's follow that line of reasoning for a moment.
Asserted: Americans should be free from surveillance.
Facts: there is an infinite number of other civilians who can freely surveil you in public. Those civilians are free to record your actions in public using any of a number of devices. The freedom to observe and record in public is a basic American freedom.
The media is free to record the actions of others in public;indeed, their doing so has proven to be one of the strongest safeguards the public has against malfeasance.
Law-abiding Americans should be free from being victimized by crime. The right to be free from crime is more compelling than the right to civil freedoms.
To protect us from criminal victimization, we have established law enforcement agencies whose personnel may legally carry weapons, wear disguises, pretend to be someone that they're not, take people into custody and use lethal force as necessary to secure the public safety. This practice is as old as civilization and is nearly global in use.
These are all facts, and every one of them is at least somewhat opposed to your notion that "civil rights" are under attack from police cameras, and that they represent the thin edge of the wedge towards the abolition of rights and privacy. I believe that is nothing more than alarmism and slippery-slope fallacy, based upon flawed understanding of the divisions between public and private, and of the fact that we already willingly accept certain practical concessions to privacy in public.
"This practice is as old as civilization and is nearly global in use."
Actually, a unified police force, one that works for the people, not the man in charge, has only been around since 1829. Robert Peel and the metropolitan police act.
Disguises are used in street crime, especially rapes, because 9 times out of 10 the person being raped knows the rapist. But you act as if these people walk around everywhere with the disguise. Most criminals will scope out a spot to commit crime, not walk aimlessly waiting for a hot pick to come across their path.
Police cameras will not stop crime, crime is like a virus, we may deter it, but it evolves. Disabling a camera, wearing a disguise, these are just a few ways to disprove the effectiveness of cameras.
And these cameras, they aren't cheap. Who do you believe will have to pay for these? But i'm sure when the cop budget has been cut, you will feel safe being mugged and knowing that there is a big, strong camera at your back, instead of a person.
I am also a criminal law student, I would love to hear where you got this piece of information.
"It's _very_ rare for street crimes to involve disguises.*"
It is not that I just disagree with you but my 19 text books seem to provide a much different answer.
So simply provide me with a source of your information.
"Actually, a unified police force, one that works for the people, not the man in charge, has only been around since 1829. Robert Peel and the metropolitan police act."
Prevarication. Law enforcement has existed since at least Rome, and has served to maintain the public peace, interdict and discourage crime, etc.
"Disguises are used in street crime, especially rapes, because 9 times out of 10 the person being raped knows the rapist."
Say what?! 90% of rapists who are known by their victims wear disguises to rape women on the street? Where on earth did you get this nugget?
"Most criminals will scope out a spot to commit crime, not walk aimlessly waiting for a hot pick to come across their path."
I don't buy this for a minute. Most street crime is opportunistic or an act of passion. There have been a number of high-profile assaults/murders in SF in the past few years, and in none of them have disguises played a part. I've been robbed twice; neither perp wore a disguise. If, as you claim, criminals scope out a spot to commit crime, then it's all the more reason to use concealed cameras.
"Police cameras will not stop crime..."
Chicago's experience has suggested otherwise.
"Disabling a camera, wearing a disguise, these are just a few ways to disprove the effectiveness of cameras."
There are ways to evade in-person surveillance too, but that doesn't render in-person surveillance obsolete. Cameras are just a tool in the hands of police, not a panacea. They are no different than undercover work, stake-outs or even walking the beat. All of those things have their weaknesses, yet all of them are useful.
"Chicago's experience has suggested otherwise."
"The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected"
That would suggest your comment is reporting only on the slightest of offenses.
"Say what?! 90% of rapists who are known by their victims wear disguises to rape women on the street? Where on earth did you get this nugget?"
Read my comment again, you have completely changed what I said.
If you don't wish to reread it, let me say it once more. 90% of the time, victims of rape know who there victims are, I never said 90% of rapes involve disguises.
Most street crime can be opportunistic, true, but criminals of lesser crimes tend to stay in there comfort zone.
And if hidden cameras were used, that would only create new places for criminals to commit crimes, you cannot have a camera every 250 feet.
And there IS a difference between a cop surveilling the streets and a camera, most criminals with the intent to commit a crime will not be stopped by a camera, the threat of a cop, however, is much different. Look at child molestors, almost every month there is new video footage on the National press level of a perp abducting a child in plain sight. So if the criminal wishes to commit the crime, a camera will not stop him.
And I had already considered the use of law enforcement beyond my earlier comment, which is why I said "for the people, not the man in charge." Most authority figures in those times were used as a deterrence to revolution of the government, sure criminals were arrested and jails and prisons were used to keep them, but the power of the ruler was in higher priority than the protection of the people.
"It's _very_ rare for street crimes to involve disguises.*"
And you still haven't given any sources to this comment.
If you would like mine, here.
Criminal Investigation. 9th edition. Swanson.
The American System of Criminal Justic. 11th edition. Cole.
Corrections in America. 5th edition. Allen.
Correction: 90% of the time, victims of rape know who there rapists are.