Does CCTV Really Reduce Crime?

In the UK, home of twenty percent of thethe scene in a timely fashion.
world's CCTV cameras, there is mounting concernThere are many concerns for the rights of
about its invasion and lack of regulation. "UK Publiccitizens caught on tape as well. What, for instance,
CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign."is the policy on who sees what faces and how
The thought-provoking questions they ask arelong those faces remain on tape and where?
good ones.To what other uses and outside firms will
They want to know, for instance, why, ifinformation garnered by CCTV be handed out?
television programming and licensing is so heavilyWill racial profiles of neighborhoods, for instance,
regulated in the UK that the same legislators havebe sold to commercial marketing companies? If
never considered licensing for CCTV use andthese videos are sold to outside firms what's to
installation? They ask also if the crime statisticskeep them from using them in commercial ways
touted by CCTV proponents are accurate, or ifthat would include the display of photos? Might not
the criminals are merely being moved down thean advertising agency, for instance, use the photo
road to commit crimes elsewhere.of a prominent person such as an entertainer or
They want to know if civil liberties are beingpolitician, as part of an advertising campaign? And
taken into consideration, or if they're ignored andif so, what about the rights of said entertainer or
thus violated. They want to know if close circuitpolitician? What about her or his rights to financially
television is really worth what they're paying for it.gain from the commercial enterprise?
Does it really, for instance, deter crime, provideThese and many other questions are being asked
swift proof of guilt and reduce the number ofby concerned British residents who see CCTV as
police officers needed to keep a vigilant watch?potentially invasive if not regulated, and in the
They also ruminate about whether thesehands of the wrong people.
cameras, once in place, are actually beingThey also point out zealously that the May 2000
adequately monitored. If, in fact, there are enoughDeclaration of Human Rights, delivered in
folks doing the watching that quick response canStrasbourg, confirms the illegality of the
be affected once a crime in action is caught onunregulated and undisclosed use of CCTV. Its
camera. If that is not the case – if, in fact,Article 8 stated it to be an interference to the
as they suspect, one person is paid to view aapplicant's right to expectation of privacy and that
vast number of monitors at one time, then thethis interference was a direct result of its not
cost of the equipment may in fact not be offsetbeing regulated by any governing agency.
by the policing authorities' availability to arrive on