A study from san francisco shows that surveillance cameras have no effect on severe crimes, but have led by 20 to 30 percent in property labels to a rint of 20 to 30 percent
Do we want a society that lives stately under observation of camera eyes? The question arises again and again, currently on the newly created website of the american burger rights organization american civil liberties union. The name of the website: "you are leg watched". So-called hotspots, camera monitoring systems in all 50 states of the usa, links drove to the relevant local news or other news sources, the information about the costs, planning of installation, execution, etc. Give. But there is also a different high price that does not let yourself be in dollars, the for the "trugger appearance of security" must be paid: the mobs on burial freedoms.
The use of monitoring cameras exchanges only the illusion of security and in reality is not efficient, as far as the prevention of crimes is concerned, so the central argument of barry steinhardt, which is belonging to the technical staff of the aclu. On the new website, the argument is occupied by study results
There are exemplary scientific literature on this topic — studies that have been carried out on many years — and this research clearly proves that camera message has no statistically significant impact on crime rates. Several studies on video camera recovery were carried out in gobritain, where there are overall monitoring cameras. The two most important meta studies that have been carried out for the british home office clearly show that cammerizer message has no effect on crime.
In the united states there are fewer studies on this topic, informs aclu, but pre-examines of a study of monitoring cameras in california were showing similar results as the studies of great britain: little or no effect concerning the reduction of crime rates.
Since 9. January the final results of the californian study are published; they convey a slightly more differentiated picture. Scientists from berkeley and other universities, who had teamed up to cetris (center for information technology research in the interest of society) team, examined the efficiency of the 71 monitoring cameras, which in a planning and implementation are concerned, unusually transparent project in san francisco were set up.
The 184-page report of the scientists, in which they the effectiveness of the san francisco community safety camera program in contrast to many other reports, it is very readable and brings results in the results that did not contradict the common sense, but some too far and ideal speech from the efficacy of the camera monitoring: statistically significant jerkging of lighter crimes, property labels, within an area which is approximately in the 30 meter radius from the camera — at public experience; the result does not apply to private homes.
We found quite consistent evidence based on a plethora of empirical tests that the installation of community safety cameras at 19 places, which are distributed over the city, had a statistically significant effect on the inflation of property labels within the camera’s observation view field. The ruckle of such offenses moved at 20 percent and, which concerns the crimes in the public, even at 30 percent.
In the concrete inventory of the offenses, which are statistically accumulated in the area of the observing camera, but not in adjacent areas, the report mentions: pickling wheels, thiefs of fines from buildings and cars. However, one found no evidence that the camera recovery had any impact on intermediate trap with drugs, in connection with prostitution or vandalism.
Since the 71 cameras were set up in san francisco where there were particularly many violent crime, the impact of observation on these crimes was the most important result. This is the resume:
We found no evidence for an influence of community safety cameras on violent crimes; we observed no ruckle in such areas that were kamauberwacht, compared to other non-monitored areas.
Success also had the community safety cameras program from san francisco with the investigators, which according to the report on the new investigative investigative tool, which helped you in the reconstruction of passes passed.
Thus, the recommendation of cetris scientists to the city of san francisco is not to set the monitoring camera program, but according to the comments to the results:
If san francisco believes the documented effects on property crime providing an independant and compelling base for the program, it may want to reevaluate its camera placement strategy. But the system is clearly having an effect..