Right: Melbourne's lord mayor Robert Doyle supports the provision of more CCTV in the city, including mobile cameras on council security vehicles. 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. |
Further implications
The increased use of CCTV surveillance is generally a popular measure among the electorate. Despite some researchers' reservations about its effectiveness, these cameras appear to increase the community's sense of safety. They are thus a popular measure among governments seeking to appear to be taking action against crime. However, before Australia invests further in this technology, calls have been made for us to put legislative protections in place and to investigate the circumstances under which this form of surveillance is most effective in preventing crime and prosecuting criminals.
In November 2003 Dr. Dean Wilson, a lecturer in Criminal Justice and Criminology, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University and Dr. Adam Sutton, a senior lecturer in the Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne, concluded, 'As CCTV systems continue to expand, there needs to be a more thorough investigation into the desirability of statutory regulation.
Currently there is no specific state or territory legislation covering CCTV in public areas...
Statutory regulation has the potential to increase the accountability of CCTV systems and may increase public confidence in their operation as a result.
More Australian research is needed on the ways public space CCTV is used and its impacts on crime, perceptions of safety and civil liberties. Such research may prove that CCTV can be effective in reducing the incidence of some types of crime. However, it remains to be established in what locations and under what conditions. CCTV should also continue to be assessed against other crime prevention measures that might produce superior or equivalent outcomes.
Imperfect knowledge about the effects of CCTV does not justify jettisoning the approach altogether, particularly when one considers that, in the absence of such systems, ordinary citizens may become even more inclined to abandon public space.'
These criminologists are arguing that before Australia extends CCTV surveillance we should research its effectiveness so that we know what crime control outcomes we can realisably expect from these devices.
Current research suggests these devices do not prevent crime; however, they may have a function in criminal detection and apprehension.
We need to ensure that the financial investment Australia makes in these devices is commensurate with the benefits we can reasonably expect from them. Authorities must ensure these devices are placed where they will be of most use and that there are appropriate monitoring systems in place so that the potential value of these devices is realised.
Beyond this, civil liberties must be protected. Australia needs specific, perhaps federal laws governing the use of CCTV surveillance. Its use has to be transparent, justified and regulated so that its potentially negative impact on citizens' rights is minimised.