losses to a level that would mean their investment was recouped within two years. The authors concluded that anyone buying an off-the-shelf CCTV system may be wasting their money: only systems designed against a specific threat in a specific operating environment are effective.

A 2005 study of 13 CCTV systems funded by the U.K. government for crime prevention2 concluded they had little or no impact on crime recorded by the police, or on citizens’ perception of crime (based on victimization rates, fear of crime and other information collected via local surveys). A common problem was that those who bought the systems were unclear about the purpose of—and hence the technical and operating requirements for—the systems. Many projects were driven by an “uncritical view that CCTV was ‘a good thing’ and that specific objectives were unnecessary.” Systems were bought because funding was available, or because a neighboring town had purchased one. There was no understanding of what CCTV could achieve, what types of problems it was best suited to alleviate, and which configuration and support technologies work best for which requirements. With buyers being unclear about objectives and lacking expertise, the systems were generally chosen by the salesperson—who tended to pick the system that suited the budget. In day-to-day operations, it turned out that many cameras were ineffective because they were badly placed, broken, dirty, or lighting was insufficient—problems that were previously identified in London Underground control rooms. 6 Both Gill and Spriggs2 and McIntosh6 also found that operator performance in the control room was hampered by a large number of disparate systems and information sources, and inefficient audio communication channels. Recent research by my own team5 found these problems continue to affect operator performance, as do ever-increasing camera-to-operator ratios. Recorded video was generally too poor to be used for evidence. These problems suggest CCTV for crime prevention can only be effective as part of an overall set of measures and procedures designed to deal with specific problems. Effective communication and coordination be-

the effectiveness
of cctV is being
questioned in the
country that has
been a leading and
enthusiastic adopter.

tween CCTV control rooms and those on the ground (police, shop and bar staff, private security forces) is key— and of course there must be sufficient staff on the ground to respond. And cameras need clear lines of sight and sufficient lighting. We found current practice is still a long way off: cameras were ineffective because of trees and shrubs growing in front, and autofo-cus cameras broken because they were pointed at flags and bunting.

Current research shows that CCTV for crime prevention is largely ineffective. It is “lazy” to assume that installing technology solves the problem. It takes domain knowledge and attention to detail to make security technology work effectively—to date, this has been ignored, with expensive consequences.

 

References

1. beck, a., and Willis, a. context-specific measures of cctV effectiveness in the retail sector. Crime Prevention Studies 10 (1999), 251–269; http://www. popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_10/10- beckWillis.pdf

2. gill, M. and Spriggs, a. assessing the impact of cctV. home office research Study 292. Uk home office research, Development and Statistics Directorate, February 2005; http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ pdfs05/hors292.pdf

3. hope, c. ‘ Worthless’ cctV camera footage is not good enough to fight crime. The Daily Telegraph, (aug. 26, 2009); http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/ politics/6088086/Worthless-cctV-camera-footage-is- not-good-enough-to-fight-crime-leading-Qc-warns.html

4. keval, h. U. and Sasse, M.a. “Not the usual suspects”: a study of factors reducing the effectiveness of cctV. to appear in The Security Journal 23, 2 (apr. 2010); http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sj/journal/vaop/ ncurrent/abs/ sj20082a.html

5. Luff, P., heath, c., and Jirotka, M. (2000): Surveying the scene: technologies for everyday awareness and monitoring in control rooms. Interacting with Computers 13, (2000), 193–228.

6. Mcintosh, L. Soaring cctV cameras ‘are costly, futile and politically motivated’. The Times (oct. 13, 2009); http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/ article6871833.ece?token=null&offset= 12&page= 2

 

M. Angela Sasse ( [e-mail]) is head of information Security research in the Department of computer Science at University college London.

copyright held by author.

Calendar
of Events

February 15–17 International Symposium on BioComputing 2010, Calicut, India, Contact: Dan Tulpan, phone: [phone], Email: dan.tulpan@ nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

February 19–21
Symposium on Interactive
3D Graphics and Games,
Bethesda, MD,
Sponsored: SIGGrApH,
Contact: Chris Wyman,
phone: [phone],
Email: [e-mail]

February 22–23
Workshop on Mobile
Opportunistic networking,
pisa, Italy,
Sponsored: SIGMOBIlE,
Contact: Sergio polazzo,
phone: [phone],
Email: [e-mail]

February 22–23
Multimedia Systems Conference
phoenix, Arizona,
Sponsored: SIGMM,
Contact: Wu-Chi Feng,
phone: [phone],
Email: [e-mail]

February 25–27
India Software Engineering
Conference,
Mysore, India,
Contact: Srinivas
padmanabhuni,
Email: [e-mail]

February 26–27
International Conference
and Workshop on Emerging
Trends in Technology,
Mumbai, India,
Contact: poorva Girish
Waingankar,
Email: poorva.waingankar@
thekureducation.org

March 2–5
International Conference
on Human robot Interaction,
nara, Japan,
Sponsored: SIGCHI, SIGAr T,
Contact: pamela J. Hinds,
phone: [phone],
Email: [e-mail]

March 2–5
IEEE pacific Visualization 2010,
Taipei, Taiwan,
Contact: Shen Han- Wei,
Email: hwshen@
cse.ohio-state.edu