I most certainly do not come from a liberal background or perspective and would firmly maintain that if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear in your image being captured on CCTV.
Historically, I would have placed myself in the “CCTV sceptic” camp but I would now describe myself as a “CCTV realist”. There can be no doubt that if it is properly designed in consultation with an informed end-user, fully funded (to include monitoring and maintenance costs) and effectively installed, CCTV is an effective tool, but it is only one tool in the box. No one would use a toffee hammer to break a rock or a sledgehammer to break toffee; the same applies to CCTV. Used in the correct situation – it works, used in the wrong situation – it is worse than nothing as it is expensive and doesn’t deliver.
Rather than the industry developing a “strong refutation” of current criticisms I would suggest that there may be more benefit in taking a cold, hard look at the concerns of end-users and honestly asking if there is a case to answer.
Alan’s assertion that “the big yellow notices are not primarily designed to brighten our bleak urban landscape” raises my first concern which asks; what is the mechanism that is influencing the decision-making process within the criminal’s mind? Is it the CCTV or is it the “big yellow notices” that “make the little toads who roam our streets and transport systems think twice before they commit a crime” and would these notices achieve the same result without the CCTV at a fraction of the price.
In addressing Alan’s second position that “There is no case to prove”; I accept his basic premise that it is impossible to measure what has not happened and it is also impossible to assess what the present position would be without the intervention of CCTV. However, this has always been one of the fundamental quandaries that face everyone involved in preventing criminal activity. This difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of any intervention in controlling or reducing criminal behaviour does not in itself give licence to blind unquestioning defence.
In my experience the assertion that most CCTV systems do not deliver is unequivocal and the question that should be asked is not “Do they work?”, but rather “Why do they not work?”
As an operational police officer I quickly learnt not to expect too much evidence from CCTV systems. When you have viewed your umpteenth thumb sized image on a fuzzy black and white monitor with more ghostly images than Madam Tussauds, (if you were fortunate enough for the camera to be looking in the right direction at the right time and the tape to have been replaced sometime in the last year) you tend to become somewhat sceptical.
Subsequently, working as a police crime prevention officer one of my regular unfortunate duties was the post-installation evaluation of both public and private CCTV systems and on too many occasions (albeit, using my own “rule of thumb” measurement system) they delivered performance in single digit percentages.
Working now as a security specifier within education and privately as a wholly independent consultant it becomes clear that the end-users are speaking Martian, the security installer is from Venus and no one is interpreting. Or, the end-user doesn’t know what they want (other than a solution to their problem), the security supplier doesn’t care what they want (as long as they get an order) but no one is asking “is this what they need?”
The conflict of interest in the advice given by the (sales) consultant comes into sharp contrast if it is compared to the situation within the Financial Services sector. Originally there was no distinction between financial consultants and this confusion was perceived by the Financial Services Agency as being detrimental to the interests of the client/end-user/customer.
This resulted in the establishment of two different types of financial advisors; firstly, those who only provided advice on the range of products offered by their company, who were remunerated by commission on sales and were required at the opening of any consultation to make it clear they were only giving advice on their own products (and to obtain a written confirmation that this position had been clearly brought to the clients attention) and secondly, the independent financial consultant who was paid by the hour for their advice and expertise.
However, the fault lies equally with the end-user who is wholly focused on price. Simply consider the number of independent financial advisors compared to those attached to individual financial institutions and comprehend the value that the end-user places on independent expert advice.
This assessment is not intended to decry the position of the commission based consultant or to question their level of expertise. However, the sales focused, target orientated environment within they work, where the bread on their (or their families) table is dictated by closing the deal can do nothing but raise a query over their ability to remain wholly and totally objective throughout the process.
In many ways this is a reworking of the old adage of “He who pays the piper calls the tune” as in both of these situations the end user is paying the piper with the only difference being in the clarity with which the bill is presented and a closer analogy might be, “He who knows he pays the piper calls the tune”.
There are many alternative tools to CCTV and if the first security specialist consulted cannot effectively discuss the merits of them all without any vested interest, the most effective solution may be missed and the second or third best option may be forcibly moulded to perform a wholly unsuitable function.
In this process of equipment selection the updated version of the Home Office publication “CCTV Operational Requirements Manual 55-06” provides a partial answer in identifying the critical centrality of developing an operation requirement and in dividing its design into two levels.
The level one operational requirement is the first assessment of risk, quantification of potential consequences and a genuine open questioning of the measures required to address the current problem. However, the primary weakness within the publication and the level one operational requirement is in the implied assumption that there is an automatic progression from the level one question of “what equipment do I need” to the level two question “what CCTV do I need”.
On many occasions the answer to the level one operational requirement should be “anything but CCTV”, or “I cannot afford the CCTV I need and an alternative solution must be found”. The real issue under consideration is the “how” of the selection of CCTV as the most appropriate response.
The launch of the Security Industry Authority into Scotland, plans for extension into Northern Ireland and stalled proposals for the SIA to extend their remit from the present focus on security sector personnel to consultants presents an interesting dilemma. Whilst there is difficulty in deciding if there is any need for expanding the remit of the SIA and even more difficulty in defining the role of the security consultant might there not be a simple starting point in establishing the formal concept of an independent consultant who will help the end-user to define and quantify their problem, identify the most appropriate solution so that when CCTV is selected it is for the right reason, properly designed, realistic expectations are set, problems are solved and CCTV gets its strong refutation from genuine delivery.
Norman Gibson MSc MSyl