Right: watch your body language. A new camera development includes sophisticated software which can recognise "suspicious movements and actions" in a person in front of a CCTV camera. Once marked as "suspicious", the person will be automatically followed by cameras all over the city until he or she commits a crime, or the camera operators decide it's all a mistake.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Australia installing more closed circuit TV cameras
1. These cameras act as a deterrent to potential criminals
Although it is acknowledged that CCTV surveillance has had a less dramatic deterrent effect than its original proponents hoped, supporters of the technology argue that the use of surveillance cameras as a criminal deterrent does succeed when it is part of a broader crime reduction strategy with active monitoring and where police are able to respond quickly to a developing incident.
Defenders of CCTV surveillance also argue that what should be acknowledged is that there are 'degrees of deterrence', that is, that there are types of crime and types of criminal that will be deterred by the presence of a CCTV camera and others that will not.
Todd Thompson, a project manager for CCTV 2M Solutions has argued, 'To suggest anything actually prevents crime by a determined criminal is misleading. Even the force of police officers in the street, the military guarding against crimes of terrorism, and a highly observant public, cannot always defeat the criminal mind. However, prevention measures, including CCTV surveillance, can deter the marginal criminal.'
It is also argued that there is no way of clearly establishing that CCTV has had no deterrent effect as there is no way of knowing what the incidence of crime would have been a particular location without them.
2. These cameras make it easier to apprehend and convict criminals
It has been claimed that CCTV footage is an invaluable tool in assisting police in the apprehension of criminals. The footage can also help ensure that a criminal is found guilty of the crime he or she has committed, as it can supplement eye-witness evidence or act in its stead where a criminal act has no witnesses.
The utility of CCTV footage to police was explained by Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective, in an article published in The Herald on September 28, 2012.
Mr Bezzina stated, 'The real value in mass CCTV coverage of our city is in the investigation of crime, not the prevention. It adds to the crime-solving arsenal, allowing police to identify witnesses, offenders and patterns.
Having footage can help support or disprove the account of a witness. It can pinpoint what happened, where it happened and how many people took part. Where footage can show an accused person was elsewhere, it can be used to clear them of involvement in a crime. And, equally, it can be used to implicate offenders.'
On October 12, 2012, the ABC's opinion site, The Drum published a comment on CCTV surveillance by Andrew Tiedt, a criminal defence lawyer at Armstrong Legal in Sydney.
Mr Toedt stated, 'I have viewed recordings where an operator has seen something happen, has called the incident through to 000, and then followed the perpetrators as they ran from the scene. Police were guided to their location and promptly arrested and charged the appropriate people. Consequently, on balance, I think CCTV cameras are a good thing.'
In an opinion piece published in The Independent on March 17, 2008, Johann Hari gave an overview of some of the more news-worthy criminals who had recently been apprehended in Britain with the help of CCTV footage. Mr Hari wrote, 'The Ipswich Ripper was caught before he could murder even more young women because he was picked up on CCTV; the Soho nail-bomber was caught before he could blow up more black and gay people because he was captured on CCTV; and a few days ago at the Old Bailey, a man who shot a pregnant 22-year-old woman was banged up after being caught on camera.' What this list suggests is that CCTV often does not merely help in the apprehension of someone who has committed one crime; rather it protects the public from someone who is likely to go on offending again and again.
It has also been demonstrated that the lack of CCTV surveillance footage is often a direct impediment to the solving of a crime. At a recent suspicious death in Sydney, Kings Cross Police crime manager Detective Inspector Paul McDonald stated that a gap in CCTV coverage had left police without enough evidence to charge a suspect.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Murdoch explained that the attack took place in a blind spot where there were no CCTV cameras. The Assistant Commissioner stated, 'We don't have direct CCTV coverage of exactly where this incident happened. Coverage in that part of Victoria St unfortunately is not great.'
Instances such as this have been used by police to argue that the number of CCTV cameras should be increased in Australian cities.
3. Increased official use of CCTV cameras and better co-ordination will make them easier to monitor and access
It has been claimed that more official CCTV cameras will have a better crime-control effect because they will be better monitored and where something suspicious is detected police can be more quickly informed.
This point was made by Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective, in an article published in The Herald on September 28, 2012. Mr Bezzina has stated, 'Where cameras are being monitored rather than just recorded, police can be notified quickly and direct the necessary resources to an incident as it is happening.'
How closely cameras are monitored usually depends on agreements struck between local police and the councils that pay for systems. Reformers argue there needs to be far better co-ordination between council owned and run CCTV cameras and the law-enforcement agencies responsible for acting on the information these cameras supply.
This means that a larger proportion of police budgets needs to be directed toward paying those officers who monitor the footage from CCTV cameras.
There is also the capacity to give the wider community access to centrally collected images of suspects.
Law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom recently revealed the use of an app called Facewatch to track down low-level offenders. It utilizes footage showing people's faces, captured via surveillance cameras, to create a database of suspects. The database is then made publicly available to anyone who downloads the app with a mobile phone. In a bizarre and highly problematic use of crowd sourcing, members of the general public are asked to sift through the collection of photographs and send identifying information about anyone they may recognize to the police. "Scotland Yard says it has loaded its 'Facewatch' app with nearly 5,000 pictures of suspects wanted either in connection with low-level crime or riots.
4. Australia is lagging in the use of CCTV cameras
Promoters of the increased use of CCTV surveillance in this country have noted that compared to many other jurisdictions, especially Great Britain, Australia has a low number of cameras per head of population. This despite the fact that we are one of the most urbanised nations in the world and that many of the crimes CCTV cameras are intended to guard against, occur with particular frequency in urban areas.
The United Kingdom has made the most extensive use of CCTV as a crime prevention tool. There are some 30 million CCTV cameras in operation worldwide, with 6 million in the United Kingdom. The average British citizen is caught on CCTV cameras at least 300 times a day. London's Metropolitan Police Force has approximately 200,000 cameras installed around the capital. The United Kingdom has the highest number of CCTV cameras per head of population, about one camera to every 10 people.
However, the past five years have also seen considerable expansion in many other countries. Deployment of surveillance cameras in public is extensive throughout the European Union. A similar trend is evident in New Zealand and South Africa. Public systems also are in operation in Canada and the United States, where rapid expansion in CCTV and the use of biometric technology has occurred in the wake of the September 11 World Trade Centre attacks and associated concerns about internal security and terrorism. The largest CCTV system in the World is at Singapore Airport with more than 3,000 cameras.
Australia has not embraced CCTV with the same enthusiasm as the northern hemisphere. In Australia, the average citizen is likely to be captured on film a mere 15 times a day.
Former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, remarked after a visit to London in 2005, 'I have been mightily impressed with the great capacity of the British police within 24 hours to identify people. And these cameras, which of course are far more extensively used in Britain and other parts of the world other than in Australia, are certainly a real plus in catching people.'
5. CCTV surveillance does not pose a threat to privacy
The central privacy argument put in favour of law enforcement agencies being able to record images of people going about in public is that if these people are doing nothing wrong they should not object to being recorded.
It has also been noted that the actions recorded by CCTV cameras are already being performed in a public space and therefore the cameras are not an invasion of privacy.
Johann Hari, in an opinion piece published in The Independent on March 17, 2008, argued, 'If you walk through Central London you are picked up by nearly one thousand cameras. But you will only ever be picked up by a CCTV camera in a place where you could be seen by a random stranger. Walking through Central London, anyone can see you - and tens of thousands do. This isn't an intrusion into your privacy, because you aren't in private...
I am saying that these cameras are not in places where you hide: they are in public, where you are being seen by any number of people you will never know.'
On October 12, 2012, the ABC's opinion site, The Drum published a comment on CCTV surveillance by Andrew Tiedt, a criminal defence lawyer at Armstrong Legal in Sydney.
Mr Toedt stated, 'These cameras are a fundamentally different proposition to, for example, the Government's new powers to compel ISP's to store and make available a person's internet browsing habits.
A CCTV camera doesn't peer over your shoulder as your browse the internet, or as you undertake otherwise private activities. It records only what is done in public.
In this way, it sees nothing more than a police officer with two functional eyes could. It doesn't come into your home, nor does it record your private conversations
In this way, it sees nothing more than a police officer with two functional eyes could.'
But it is a fact of life today that our movements are recorded in so many places we go.
The utility of CCTV footage to police was explained by Charlie Bezzina, a former Victoria Police homicide squad detective, in an article published in The Herald on September 28, 2012.
Mr Bezzina stated, 'For the most part, it is for our safety. For example, most new blocks of flats have CCTV and just about every public building or place.
In public you are in full view. You should expect to be filmed.'
6. Protections exist to guard individual privacy
It has been claimed that all Australian states have laws and regulations relating to privacy.
In New South Wales, the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 was passed on 25 November 1998. The Act covers local government authorities as public sector agencies and as such is used by local councils when considering the establishment and implementation of CCTV.
The Act defines personal information as 'information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in material form) about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion'.
This definition includes the video record made by local councils, as people filmed are in many cases be people whose identity is apparent or could be reasonably ascertained, for example, people who work in the area and are filmed on a regular basis.
The Act requires that a public sector agency must not collect personal information unless:
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose which is directly related to a function or activity of the agency, and
(b) the collection of the information is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
It is also stipulated that a public sector agency must not collect personal information by any unlawful means.
The overall principals that govern the operation of CCTV surveillance are
i) the recording and retention of images should be undertaken fairly and lawfully;
ii) the purpose for which the information is being obtained is known;
iii) the information not be used for any other purpose than that proclaimed;
iv) people be aware that they may be subject to CCTV surveillance;
v) the CCTV surveillance should only be used to identify crimes occurring within the CCTV area;
vi) the CCTV surveillance should never be used to monitor or track individuals who have not obviously been involved in a crime;
vii) the CCTV surveillance should not be used for general intelligence gathering; and
viii) the owners of the scheme are known and accountable for its operation.