Big Brother's on the way

Fosters.coms Aaron Sanborn reports that in Dover, NH the police are going to be installing 23 cameras in various public buildings. The cameras aren't going to be constantly monitored but will be used to provide evidence in the case of crime. Sanborn talked to Dover Police Chief Anthony Colarusso.

"In general the security cameras are a deterrence that will hopefully prevent anything from happening," Colarusso said. "If people know a camera is in a certain area, they may be less likely to commit a crime."

Really? How many bank robberies occur every day in the U.S.? Are they more or less per capita than they were before the advent of cameras? Is there any evidence that they really are deterrent?

Well, the answer to that is a resounding "?".

Some studies show the cameras to be effective, some show them to be ineffective. Some show them to be effective, but closer study shows camera installation coincided with increased patrols - so which was the bigger deterrent? The questionable track record combined with the expense to setup and maintain and the privacy concerns of cameras should weigh heavily in the consideration of any camera deterrent program. But it doesn't. The appearance of doing something often trumps all other considerations.

For a very good article on "Police Cameras" check out the article at Howstuffworks.com. Or you can check out my original post on the subject - it says much the same thing, but howstuffworks.com has even more supporting links.

School administrations are not police

Just days after telling you about the student who successfully sued her school for violating her free speech rights when they punished her for her Facebook page we see a new lawsuit filed, this time alleging invasion of privacy by school officials. If true, it is truly a case of school officialdom run amok.
In the Lower Merion School District each high school student was issued a laptop to improve and engage the students more fully in their education. The laptops were equipped with webcams and had software installed on them that allowed the webcam on a stolen laptop to be activated remotely, sending a still picture of whoever was using the laptop back to the school.

That's all well and good, but the students and their parents were not informed of this feature. Even that might not have been a big deal, but in at least one instance a picture was taken of a student whose laptop had not been stolen. And the student (and his family) learned of this when an assistant principal called the boy into the office and informed him that he was engaged in inappropriate activity at home. For proof he produced the picture taken using the webcam.

One has to wonder how many photos were taken, and showing what. The school had no right to be taking pictures of the students. Even if they thought the student was involved in something illegal, they had no right to activate the camera. Even the police would have had to prove probable cause to a judge and gotten a warrant.

The fallacy of "crime prevention" cameras

In the last few years there has been a lot of reporting about cities and even countries (England) putting a great deal of trust in the idea that cameras in public areas will deter crime. I don't believe the evidence supports that idea. Here in Lubbock data indicated that on intersections with red light cameras, accidents increased, which was the opposite of the desired effect.

In Dallas they have had cameras for a while. It's interesting to take a look at 3 snapshots in time:

March 21, 2008 - Dallas News reports that cameras placed around the Dallas area have reduced crime. Among items reported as also having an effect in some areas are increased police presence and active neighborhood watch. For some reason their effect on crime is barely acknowledged.


April 27, 2009 - the Grit for Breakfast blog looks at the reported improvement in crime statistics and reveals that while crime was down 11% in camera monitored areas, it was down 18.7% in the rest of Dallas. The author wonders whether a decrease in one areas crime is really a decrease if the rest of the city decreases more. He also points out that Dallas recently changed it's crime reporting policy, and the effect of that has not been factored in.

December 1, 2009 - cbs11tv reports that the cameras have been ineffective deterring crime. In one area the cameras were placed in crime actually increased - and none of the crime was caught on camera.

Crime cameras are not tools of a legitimate republic. They are the tools of totalitarian regimes and serve best as a means to monitor law abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals will figure out where the cameras are and make sure not to expose themselves. Law abiding citizens will become the monitored while criminals go around the not-so-deterrent.