Are we at a tipping point and could we lose public support for CCTV? If people’s privacy is routinely infringed, might the media blow things out of proportion? Or is CCTV a no-news story – is the evidence so solid that CCTV is effective? These were among the points at a lunchtime debate during the IFSEC conference, asking: have we gone too far with surveillance?
On the platform, the only actual user of CCTV was Mark Whittle, national security manager at McDonald’s. He gave an insight into the varied possible – and possibly conflicting – uses of CCTV at the restaurant chain, and indeed any commercial set-up with customers coming through the door. "We don’t open up CCTV as a general management tool," Mark Whittle said. He hinted that there is an argument against keeping cameras specific to security, but there is a concern that to widen use might be to overstep the mark. The audience heard that CCTV is a detection tool, but does it work as a deterrent? Which took the debate to the general question: what (if anything?!) deters an offender? Are offenders making a rational choice, about whether they are going to be caught? Pauline Norstrom of CCTV manufacturer Dedicated Micros, wearing her (metaphorical) BSIA CCTV section chairman hat, was fresh from batting for CCTV on BBC radio, having taken part in the general media ‘news’ debate about whether CCTV works, a week previously. As she said, while CCTV might get a bad name, it’s the police who are ill-equipped to process evidence. She argued that the CCTV industry has been extremely responsible and self-governing, and technology has been built in, such as privacy masking, to protect people’s privacy. But as an Australian said in the audience, Australian research suggests that the ‘camera effect’ wears off after 90 days’. So after the novelty of installation fades, CCTV is only helping investigators, after the event, rather than stopping crime.
