The price of privacy : Councils spend half a billion pounds on CCTV in four years

Our latest report highlights the cost to local authorities of their CCTV operations – £515m in the past four years.

There are now at least 51,600 CCTV cameras controlled by local authorities, with five councils now operating more than 1,000 cameras. In comparison, £515m would put an extra 4,121 police constables on the streets – the equivalent of Northumbria police’s entire force.

The picture varies massively across the country, as you can see from our interactive map below, the huge increase in surveillance has not been a co-ordinated and intelligence-led response to crime, but a haphazard and badly measured rush to spy on citizens. The variations in how much councils were able to tell us, and the wide range of different structures in place to manage and monitor cameras, highlights the need for a national review of CCTV and its regulation.

As part of the report, we are calling for five changes to improve the way CCTV is regulated and evaluated. We believe the Government should:

  • Give the CCTV regulator the powers to enforce the code of practice
  • Require any publicly funded CCTV installation to refer to crime statistics or demonstrate a significant risk of harm before being commenced
  • Require public bodies to publish the instances where their CCTV cameras have been used in securing a conviction, and for what offences 
  • Require public bodies to publish in a standardised format the locations of their cameras (save for those used in direct protection of sites at risk of terrorism)
  • Begin a consultation on regulating private CCTV cameras, both those operated by commercial companies and by private individuals

You can download  the full report now.

Britain has an out-of-control surveillance culture that is doing little to improve public safety but has made our cities the most watched in the world. Figures suggest that Britain is home to 20% of the world’s population of CCTV cameras, despite being home to just 1% of the world’s population. One study suggested the average Londoner is caught on camera more than 300 times every day.

Surveillance is an important tool in modern policing but it is not a substitute for policing. In too many cities across the country every corner has a camera but only a few ever see a police officer. Seven local authorities now have more CCTV cameras than Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds combined.

Despite millions of cameras, Britain’s crime rate is not significantly lower than comparable countries that do not have such a vast surveillance state.

In an age of squeezed budgets, councils continue to pour huge amounts of money into technology that indiscriminately monitors us all as potential criminals, while the actual causes of crime go ignored. Britain has become one of the most ‘watched’ societies in the world, far outstripping some authoritarian regimes, and the fervour with which some groups defend their ‘right’ to monitor us all is a social ill that few would recognise as a sign of a healthy, civil society.

When a camera is being installed, and when decisions are being made to replace them, all we are asking is that the evidence be considered. If, as we found recently with Transport for London, 9 in 10 cameras are not used by the police, then there can be little justification for continuing to divert significant resources away from alternatives which would do more to improve public safety without the wholesale invasion on our privacy that CCTV entails.

The price of this surveillance is more than just money, but a fundamental part of a free and fair society.

 

 

 

80 Comments

  1. Big Brother Watch publishes report on CCTV costs by local authority | CjScotland
    21st February 2012

    […] of privacy : Councils spend half a billion pounds on CCTV in four years” Big Brother Watch (February 2012). Contains link to report and spreadsheet. “Big Brother Watch Report – The Cost of CCTV: […]

    Reply
  2. Anonymous
    21st February 2012

    You can’t even get your figures correct in your own report (the full report, page 5) – 4.2m cameras is an outdated and discredited figure. Go ask the authors of the original figure if you don’t believe me. A far more robust estimate is 1.85 million. The average person is not viewed 300 times a day by CCTV – that figure is outdated and even its author said it was only hypothetical, based on an improbable journey around London.

    And what’s the point of this research? That we could spend the money on police officers instead? Increasing the police force by 4000 would be a two per cent increase in manpower. You might as well say let’s do away with the fingerprint and DNA labs and put more officers on the beat because we’d catch more criminals that way.

    Reply
    • Mr Jolly
      23rd February 2012

      What a shock, security industry magazine says CCTV is great. No surprise there. Why don’t you go away and look at the facts and realise that you are mistaken. Why do you guys simply ignore the research? – such as definitive study into CCTV’s effects on crime, a meta-analysis of 41 separate studies (Campbell Collaboration, 2008) which echoed and reinforced all the previous studies (except those not done by the CCTV industry itself!) that CCTV has had “NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CRIME.”

      Plenty more facts here if you want them: http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/caseagainst/reports.asp

      Reply
      • Mr Jolly
        23rd February 2012

         (except those *done* by the CCTV industry itself!)

        typo.

        Reply
        • Ianblokes
          9th October 2012

          As an ex Police officer having been a Crime Reduction Officer for many years I was often asked should I invest in CCTV or locks and bolts? The answer I would give is “CCTV doesn’t jump off a wall and stop the offender and a lock won’t be stopped by a hoddie or baseball cap”.

          99% of the installed CCTV that I have come across, be it commercial or local authority are pretty poor, over priced, over engineered and under performing. But this isn’t just the industrys fault, it’s lack of understanding as to what purpose the equipment is meant to perform.Is it to capture number plates of a moving vehicle at night in the rain? to provide identification standards at court or just to see if anything is moving in wide field of view so an operator can then zoom in? Every CCTV camera needs a specfic operational requirement (O.R) that can be given to an installer to acheive. If it doesn’t meet that standard then it’s a breach of contract and they shouldn’t get paid. I’m pretty sure the industry would then sit up and take notice.

          That said I think this chain has been a bit on fair on the CCTV industry.Often they are only supplying what has been asked for ” I need a CCTV system as a condition of my alcohol licence” so the saying goes “rubbish in rubbish out” comes to mind.

          What is required is a robust and independent licencing of both public and commercial systems that can verify that it’s fit for purpose (i.e recording, has an O.R. in line with its risk , is fit for the purpose it’s intented for and DPA registered). If it doesn’t meet this criteria then the licence is withdrawn and the system can’t be used.

          In short the reason why so little crime is prevented by CCTV is that offenders are so used to getting away without being recognised due to failings in its use, maintenance or installation that it’s often just ignored. If every camera was used effectively, legally and for a purpose then not only would offenders be deterred, but civil liberties would be safe guarded.

          Any views?

          Reply
          • Pat Kirby
            18th October 2012

            Why can’t the general public have access to publlcly funded CCTV, council run systems? It seems entirely democratic – what legitimate objections could there be, are we not trusted?

      • securitynewsdesk
        19th March 2012

        Dear Mr. Jolly,

        If I didn’t believe in what I was doing, I would start looking for another job tomorrow, so please don’t try to impugn my integrity.

        I note in your reply you didn’t address any of the issues in my original comment. Which figure do you quote when talking about CCTV? 4.2 million or 1.85 million? http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2011/03/01/how-many-cctv-cameras-in-the-uk/

        I maintain that the wrong question is being asked about CCTV. Neither CCTV nor the police are very effective at “deterring” crime, but both come into their own when it comes to investigating it.

        The Met Police found that 7 out of 10 murders in London relied heavily on CCTV evidence. I note that the police didn’t stop any of those murders for occuring, but they did their best to investigate the crime and they acknowledge that CCTV helped them significantly.

        Victims of crime repeatedly say they are delighted when the perpetrators are caught on camera because it supports their claim about what happened and hopefully leads to an identification of the perpetrator or, in some cases, a key witness.

        I think we need to get over this sterile debate about whether CCTV is “good” or “bad” and acknowledge its place in modern policing.

        Reply
  3. The biggest council CCTV spenders per resident - SA Mathieson
    22nd February 2012

    […] Brother Watch’s newly-released data on £515m of council CCTV spending between 2007 and 2011 (covered by my colleague Sade Laja on Guardian Government Computing) is even […]

    Reply
  4. Ajax
    24th February 2012

    We’re well on the road to oblivion – let the revolution commence!

    Reply
  5. Cash-strapped UK local authorities spent £0.5B on CCTV in 4 years – - AboutLifeX - Living News AggregatorAboutLifeX – Living News Aggregator
    24th February 2012

    […] The Price of Privacy: How local authorities spent £515m on CCTV in four years […]

    Reply
  6. ¿Es Londres más seguro gracias a las cámaras de seguridad? Respuesta provisional: no | Cooking Ideas
    24th February 2012

    […] tras los disturbios de Londres gracias a su inconfundible a la par que estrábica mirada. Informe original. Visto en Christian Science Monitor. Y además: -Un delito resulto por cada 1.000 […]

    Reply
  7. James
    24th February 2012

    £1.5 M for 5 cameras in Chelmsford?!?
    £0 for 2 cameras in North Dorset?
    How about getting the facts correct before publishing?

    Reply
  8. Anon
    25th February 2012

    How do you even decide what is a “direct risk of terrorism”? I mean even my college had a risk assessment of there being at biological terrorist attack. You can twist and turn that into basically the entire country is at a direct risk of terrorism.

    Reply
  9. Britain pushes for mass surveillance society « This Day – One Day
    15th March 2012

    […] The price of privacy : Councils spend half a billion pounds on CCTV in four years (bigbrotherwatch.org.uk) […]

    Reply
  10. Michael Roberts FRAS
    27th April 2012

    It’s just ridiculous the amount of money these governments will spend. Perhaps invest that half a billion in social and community programs and you might not see so much crime!

    Reply
  11. Marian McDonagh
    16th June 2012

    I live on a council estate that has blanket CCTV recently installed (without any consultation) but WE are going to have to pay for this in service charges.  We will have to pay the council to watch us!!  It makes me so cross. The council is institutionally prejudiced towards social housing tenants and treats us like scum. I am no longer a free person, might as well live in an open prison.

    Reply
  12. mastif ron
    21st June 2012

    It’s a great post for the some concern company which are those do it that work
    This is possibly one of the most common ways without people even knowing.
    thank for share it..
    wireless alarm monitoring

    Reply
  13. adam bonner
    22nd August 2012

    I’m an opponent of indiscriminate surveillance by the State. I find it offensive and rude to be monitored; to have my personal information collected and stored on a database; and to have that personal information accessed by various agencies including local government and the police. I don’t think that just because a very small proportion
    (2-3%) of the population commits crimes that my civil rights and anonymity should be trampled upon. Nor does the evidence suggest these cameras reduce crime. Whether they assist with prosecutions is dependent on many factors including the quality of the footage; whether police take the time to review footage (in many cases they don’t because they can’t be bothered or they don’t have time); whether the person of interest is looking at the camera; and whether the person of interest has their face covered. We need more research into crime clear up rates, but just because police use CCTV footage to assist in higher profile (celebrity) cases doesn’t mean a great deal if the clear up rates in general aren’t higher in areas with CCTV.
    I’ve always maintained the need to be skeptical of the State’s desire to increase its power, particularly where it means taking away freedoms we have heretofore maintained. One of our most important protections in a free and fair society is our anonymity. Indiscriminate surveillance, which is what public space CCTV does, takes this away. The State has never been allowed to indiscriminately collect fingerprints or DNA. Why on earth should it be trusted with our visual images. In the past, and still today with some forms of surveillance, the police need to show reasonable cause before a magistrate in order to be granted the right to undertake intrusive surveillance measures. Why should local government have the power to set aside this noble protection of our liberty!

    Reply
  14. Freedom Not Fear: CCTV Surveillance Cameras In Focus | Pimp My Resume
    11th September 2012

    […] report released by Big Brother Watch in February of 2012 details how local law enforcement agencies spent […]

    Reply
  15. Freedom Not Fear: CCTV Surveillance Cameras In Focus | OccuWorld
    12th September 2012

    […] report released by Big Brother Watch in February of 2012 details how local law enforcement agencies spent […]

    Reply
  16. Freedom Not Fear: CCTV Surveillance Cameras In Focus | americanpeacenik.com
    12th September 2012

    […] report released by Big Brother Watch in February of 2012 details how local law enforcement agencies spent […]

    Reply
  17. David Beach
    3rd October 2012

    City of Glasgow spent £0? Did they steal them from Edinburgh…

    Reply
  18. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | Technophile
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  19. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | PATRONIT
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  20. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | Social Web Guru Guide
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  21. rosh
    3rd October 2012

    Does the author also rite for the daily mail? the picture seems is pretty useless unless you have crime rates per a capita to compare with. The reson why there are so few convivctions are beacuse the cameras are very poor quality most people probably have better cameras on there phone. If having them everywhere helps solve even one murder or solve one
    abduction it’s worth it. Camera’s are in public places and anything you
    would have a problem with others seeing is something you shouldnt be
    doing and those located in private areas are again there to keep people
    from doing what they shouldn’t

    Reply
    • rosh
      3rd October 2012

      i now my grammer is terrible
      (*write
      **seems pretty)

      Reply
  22. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | ai:consortia
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  23. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | andybundy.com
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  24. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | Technology News
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  25. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash – NEWS FRESH
    3rd October 2012

    […] organisation Big Brother Watch reported in February that a UK internal councils had spent £515m over a prior 4 years on CCTV operations and tranquil […]

    Reply
  26. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | Best Web Consulting company in Nashik, India with Creative and Professional Website Design, Content Management Systems, Wordpress Experts, Ecommerce SEO, and more..
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  27. High-def CCTV cameras risk backlash, warns UK watchdog : BABD
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  28. High-Def CCTV Risks Public Backlash | Cryptoludus
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  29. Tech News Online » Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash
    3rd October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  30. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | Politics News and Discussion
    4th October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  31. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash | Kent CCTV Systems
    4th October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  32. Watchdog fears HD CCTV backlash
    4th October 2012

    […] group Big Brother Watch reported in February that the UK local councils had spent £515m over the previous four years on CCTV operations and […]

    Reply
  33. Anon
    6th October 2012

    Seems to me that any amount of coverage is better than none. Look at what’s happened with that poor kid in Wales, at least with decent CCTV she’d have been seen getting int the car. Maybe everyone complaining about CCTV is a closet peadophile.

    Reply
  34. IP Cameras - Urban Saviours or Civic Threats? | Blog
    7th January 2013

    […] our United Nations Article 8 protection on private and family rights. Civil liberty groups like Big Brother Watch are also worried that the information received via video surveillance might be put into the wrong […]

    Reply
  35. KB
    7th January 2013

    Let’s not be scared of technological progress. It has its benefits as well as its problems. Regulatory oversight usually lags behind technical development, as it has done in so many other areas (see social media).

    Are HD IP cameras urban saviours or civic threats? Who knows? http://www.networkwebcams.co.uk/blog/2013/01/07/ip-cameras-urban-saviours-or-civic-threats/

    Reply
  36. Gerry Dorrian
    23rd January 2013

    So how does Cambridge City Council justify spending £5,000,000 on CCTV when neighbouring South Cambs spends nothing?

    Reply
  37. GlassTV – After Boston: The pros and cons of surveillance cameras
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  38. After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV | Rene Kubitza News
    26th April 2013

    […] (CNN) — Even after the identification of the Boston bombing suspects through grainy security-camera images, officials say that blanketing a city in surveillance cameras can create as many problems as it solves.A network of cameras on city streets and other public spaces increases the chances of capturing a criminal on video but can generate an overwhelming amount of evidence to sift through. The cameras make some people feel more secure, knowing that bad guys are being watched. But privacy advocates and other citizens are uneasy with the idea that Big Brother is monitoring their every public move.Meanwhile, facial-recognition software and other technologies are making security-camera images more valuable to law enforcement. Now, software can automatically mine surveillance footage for information, such as a specific person’s face, and create a giant searchable database.After last week’s bombings at the Boston Marathon, authorities had to sift through a mountain of footage from government surveillance cameras, private security cameras and imagery shot by bystanders on smartphones. It took the FBI only three days to release blurry shots of the two suspects, taken by a department store’s cameras.The FBI last week released security-camera images of suspects in the deadly Boston Marathon bombings. Compare their quick turnaround with the 2005 London bombings, when it took thousands of investigators weeks to parse the city’s CCTV (closed-circuit television) footage after the attacks. The cameras, software and algorithms have come a long way in eight years.Cities under surveillance In major cities, in the age of terrorism, someone is almost always watching.The cameras used in London are part of the city’s extensive and sophisticated “Ring of Steel” surveillance system that combines nearly a half million cameras, roadblocks and license plate readers to monitor the heart of the city. Set up in 1998, the system is one of the most advanced in the world and allows authorities to track anyone going into or out of central London.Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  39. News | Ripple's Web » After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere?
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  40. News | Ripple's Web » After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  41. This and that | Ripple's Web » After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  42. After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV - TwoFATGuysBlog.com
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  43. After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV | JVZ News
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  44. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? | My Headlines News
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  45. Ripley's Blog | Ripple's Web » After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  46. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? | MyTopNewsDaily.com
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  47. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? | TopHeadlinesNews.com
    26th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  48. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? | Executive News Net
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents doubt a efficacy of London’s system, however. In 2008, usually one crime was solved for each 1,000 cameras, according to a city’s police. CCTV cameras opposite Britain also cost authorities scarcely $800 million over a past 4 years, according to polite liberties organisation Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  49. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere?- @helmirofiq
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  50. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? - LATEST NEWS – LATEST NEWS
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  51. Finance News 247 » After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere?
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents doubt a efficacy of London’s system, however. In 2008, usually one crime was solved for each 1,000 cameras, according to a city’s police. CCTV cameras opposite Britain also cost authorities scarcely $800 million over a past 4 years, according to polite liberties organisation Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  52. Under watch: Surveillance in America | Executive News Net
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents doubt a efficacy of London’s system, however. In 2008, usually one crime was solved for each 1,000 cameras, according to a city’s police. CCTV cameras opposite Britain also cost authorities scarcely $800 million over a past 4 years, according to polite liberties organisation Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  53. Business Daily News » After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere?
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents doubt a efficacy of London’s system, however. In 2008, usually one crime was solved for each 1,000 cameras, according to a city’s police. CCTV cameras opposite Britain also cost authorities scarcely $800 million over a past 4 years, according to polite liberties organisation Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  54. After Boston: The pros and cons of surveillance cameras – CNN | bestwebnewsonline.com
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  55. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? - Tech News 4 UTech News 4 U
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $ 800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  56. After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV | Article Dominator
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  57. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? | The Original Rage
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  58. Pros and cons of surveillance | Rene Kubitza News
    27th April 2013

    […] (CNN) — Even after the identification of the Boston bombing suspects through grainy security-camera images, officials say that blanketing a city in surveillance cameras can create as many problems as it solves.A network of cameras on city streets and other public spaces increases the chances of capturing a criminal on video but can generate an overwhelming amount of evidence to sift through. The cameras make some people feel more secure, knowing that bad guys are being watched. But privacy advocates and other citizens are uneasy with the idea that Big Brother is monitoring their every public move.Meanwhile, facial-recognition software and other technologies are making security-camera images more valuable to law enforcement. Now, software can automatically mine surveillance footage for information, such as a specific person’s face, and create a giant searchable database.After last week’s bombings at the Boston Marathon, authorities had to sift through a mountain of footage from government surveillance cameras, private security cameras and imagery shot by bystanders on smartphones. It took the FBI only three days to release blurry shots of the two suspects, taken by a department store’s cameras.The FBI last week released security-camera images of suspects in the deadly Boston Marathon bombings. Compare their quick turnaround with the 2005 London bombings, when it took thousands of investigators weeks to parse the city’s CCTV (closed-circuit television) footage after the attacks. The cameras, software and algorithms have come a long way in eight years.Cities under surveillance In major cities, in the age of terrorism, someone is almost always watching.The cameras used in London are part of the city’s extensive and sophisticated “Ring of Steel” surveillance system that combines nearly a half million cameras, roadblocks and license plate readers to monitor the heart of the city. Set up in 1998, the system is one of the most advanced in the world and allows authorities to track anyone going into or out of central London.Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  59. Pros and cons of surveillance | JVZ News
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  60. Pros and cons of surveillance | Article Dominator
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  61. Pros and cons of surveillance - TwoFATGuysBlog.com
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  62. Pros and cons of surveillance - BMAgads.com
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  63. News | Ripple's Web » Pros and cons of surveillance
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  64. News Daily 365 » After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere?
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents doubt a efficacy of London’s system, however. In 2008, usually one crime was solved for each 1,000 cameras, according to a city’s police. CCTV cameras opposite Britain also cost authorities scarcely $800 million over a past 4 years, according to polite liberties organisation Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  65. After Boston: Cameras, cameras everywhere? - City Scene Live | City Scene Live
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  66. Pros and cons of surveillance « St. Anthony's Hr. Sec. School, Shillong
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  67. After Boston: Pros and cons of CCTV - BMAgads.com
    27th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  68. All Newspapers in one place | Pros and cons of surveillance
    28th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  69. After Boston: The pros and cons of surveillance cameras | Anything You Need
    28th April 2013

    […] Many residents question the effectiveness of London’s system, however. In 2008, only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras, according to the city’s police. CCTV cameras across Britain also cost authorities nearly $800 million over the past four years, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  70. Después de Boston: los pros y los contras de las cámaras de vigilancia – CNN en Español – Ultimas Noticias de Estados Unidos, Latinoamérica y el Mundo, Opinión y Videos - CNN.com Blogs
    7th May 2013

    […] Sin embargo, muchos residentes cuestionan la efectividad del sistema. En 2008, solo se resolvió un crimen por cada 1,000 cámaras, de acuerdo con la policía local. Las cámaras de CCTV en toda Gran Bretaña costaron a las autoridades 800 millones de dólares en los últimos cuatro años, según el grupo de libertades civiles Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  71. LOS PROS Y CONTRAS DE VIVIR VIGILADO | Talla Política
    11th May 2013

    […] Sin embargo, muchos residentes cuestionan la efectividad del sistema. En 2008, solo se resolvió un crimen por cada 1,000 cámaras, de acuerdo con la policía local. Las cámaras de CCTV en toda Gran Bretaña costaron a las autoridades 800 millones de dólares en los últimos cuatro años, según el grupo de libertades civiles Big Brother Watch. […]

    Reply
  72. Steve Dee
    3rd July 2013

    As an experienced Police Detective in Central London my biggest beef is when I go to Westminster City Council following a violent crime in the City to find that their cameras, which were installed to monitor high crime areas were being used for parking enforcement ( The operators informed me that this was a stipulation of the Council) Appalling misuse!

    Reply
  73. The biggest council CCTV spenders per resident - SA MathiesonSA Mathieson
    2nd October 2014

    […] Brother Watch’s newly-released data on £515m of council CCTV spending between 2007 and 2011 (covered by my colleague Sade Laja on Guardian Government Computing) is even […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply