Home
PhotographyMany citizens interested in in a transparent state and worried about power abuse have heard about the discussion regarding general video surveillance. In Berlin, for example, cameras are omnipresent, especially in Mitte.
To give you an example, last year’s demonstration “Freiheit statt Angst” passed over 150 cameras. None of these – nor any of the many police cameras – filmed the unchecked police aggression towards an innocent man peacefully protesting; fortunately, demonstrators switched their cameras on as soon as they saw a crime being committed. This actually led to a reform of the Berlin police force: they have to wear an identification number on their uniform now.
Sometimes, the cameras in Berlin have a little sign next to them: “For your own safety, this place is under video surveillance.”
But that is simply not true: a camera does not increase your safety. It is just a piece of metal. If people rob you or assault you a camera will not help you. It will be there, filming, and show people robbing and assaulting. In nearly all cases, these people cannot be identified – that is very well known from cities like London where there is extensive research regarding the usefulness of video footage. We also know that cameras do not reduce crime rates, which was to be expected, because it is common knowledge in psychology that draconic measures of punishment like the death penalty do likewise not reduce crime rates.
Something has happened in London now that really upset me.
In January 2009, there were demonstrations against the Israeli offensive on Gaza. People were throwing bottles at police officers, which is not okay – and so the London police spent months watching CCTV footage in order to identify protestors and charge them. I understand that. But as the Guardian puts it: “It is only right that similar efforts are made to uncover police wrongdoing.” And there have been many documented assaults of policemen towards innocent and peaceful protesters, so that there is a lot of reason to investigate.
One case is a special, however:
“More worrying is the way in which CCTV is being used by the police. Demonstrator Jake Smith was charged with two counts of violent disorder. These charges were later dropped when Smith’s solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage and discovered that the police video had been edited to show events out of sequence, at one point implying another man was Smith while omitting footage showing Smith being assaulted by a police officer without provocation.”
Matt Foot, Jake’s solicitor, has published a short and very insighful written statement of the events.
To sum it up: the London police tampered with video footage in order to prosecute an innocent citizen, and they were caught by a very insistent lawyer.
I find that really hard to digest.
However, there was also one good consequence of the demonstrations. Russell and Ashley Inglis were assaulted by the police, but the police officers responsible could not be identified (youtube video).
They wrote a complaint which was turned down, appealed the decision with the same outcome, then decided to take their case to a solicitor for a civil claim. Russell and Ashley have been awarded £25,000 compensation, although the police officers responsible still remain unidentified! That is the first time this has happened, and although it might not be the best solution to let tax-payers cover for police crimes, at least there seems to be the possibility for compensation when the perpetrators cannot be identified.
Posts on this blog with related content:
- Police aggression in Berlin at “Freiheit statt Angst” demonstration, September 2009
- STOP IT: violence towards policemen at Berlin demonstrations
(Sources: Netzpolitik.org, The Guardian)
August 3rd, 2010 at 18:01
“We also know that cameras do not reduce crime rates, which was to be expected, because it is common knowledge in psychology that draconic measures of punishment like the death penalty do likewise not reduce crime rates.”
As much as I agree to a large portion of your posting, I have to point out that you’re comparing apples and pears here. You’re right that capital punishment does not reduce crime rates. But deterrence theory, to which you are referring by quoting that research, claims that there are three different aspects in the persecution of a crime that may make a potential offender refrain from committing it:
1. severeness of the sanction (or, as it is often put, a penalty “to fit the crime”)
2. swiftness of the sanction (does it follow immediately to the act or does it take years?)
3. secureness of the sanction (what are the chances of getting caught in the first place?)
Obviously, the death penalty belongs to #1, while CCTV is a matter of #2 and #3.
Furthermore, CCTV has its merits. It can reduce certain kinds of crime – namely those that “by default” have to happen at a certain place. You can only steal a bicycle where there *are* bicycles (next to the central station, e. g.), you can only damage a synagogue *at* the synagogue. On the other hand, CCTV is rather useless in fighting e.g. drug dealing – dealers and addicts will find a new place for their trade within a few hours.
August 3rd, 2010 at 20:31
I am not very well read regarding these studies and underlying theories, I just read the articles which are linked now and then and usually just show some epirical evidence. I didn’t know about deterrence theory, neither about the three points. Thanks for shedding some light on that topic.
A couple of weeks ago ZEIT found an article on the “Neukölln model to reduce juvenile criminality”. I was surprised by that, read the article: it stated that committed crimes are punished *faster*. I don’t think it is a very … adequate measure, but well, it seems to refer to #2 of the deterrence model.
And I completely agree on specific surveillance of a place where we have proof that crimes are committed regularly. When a synagogue has been attacked and there is a chance for another attack, surveillance of the entry might be the right thing.
August 3rd, 2010 at 22:16
Personally, my problem with cameras is that non actual surveillance is done – at least not in the way most people would understand that term.
What happens in the most cases by far is that the scenery is being recorded and the tapes stored for a brief period of time in order for the police to watch the footage if a crime has been committed within that period. There are not enough officials to monitor all the cameras in e.g. munich and to call in the police if a crime happens right before their eyes – thus, no live surveillance is done and the chance to use the cameras as multiplyers for the police patrols in the streets goes by by.
Different story with synagogues: At least in the synagogues i visited security personell and hardware was flown in and trained by the state of Israel. The monitors behind the cameras around those synagogues were manned alright.
But the ability of gathering evidence angainst any criminal has to do, i guess. And thats better than nothing, for sure.