Letters: Surveillance Cameras Don’t Work, and are a Waste of Money
Tuesday night, Hamtramck City Council voted on a resolution authorizing
a contract for the purchase $48,550 of video surveillance equipment by
the Downtown Development Authority.
Unfortunately the City Council agenda wasn’t published until Friday at 1:50 p.m., allowing little time for public input. The DDA’s agendas aren’t available to the public at all.
According to the resolution, ADT will deploy deploy four cameras. Three “to be placed along Jos. Campau between Holbrook and Caniff and one camera to be placed above ‘Shoppers World’ parking lot.” The DDA plans to spend $19,000 plus “$29,550 – $28,550 will be financed.”
Video surveillance might seem like a good idea but all major studies
show it doesn’t reduce crime. Independent analyses of crime data in the
UK, where surveillance systems are prevalent, show that “video
surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime.” The
preliminary US studies indicate “video surveillance system in the US
little to no positive impact on crime.”
So how is this a good idea?
If we did a cost-benefit analysis on purchasing $48,550 of video surveillance equipment, based on the studies, we would not benefit in reduction of crime. In short, it’s a waste of money.
Both the 2002 Welsh & Farrington study and the 2005 Gill & Spriggs study found that video surveillance appears to push crime 200-500 feet away from the cameras while the overall crime rate is unaffected.
This is the unintended side effect, “pushing” crime away from the cameras and into the adjacent neighborhoods. The 1997 study mentioned by the DDA Manager showed crime reductions in the vicinity of the camera, but not an overall reduction of crime. The crime just moved up the block. Two new domestic studies are under way by UC Berkeley and USC and preliminary findings are the same: no significant impact on crime.
There are better ideas.
The Department of Justice “best practices” to reduce crime are for more police patrols, more community policing, neighborhood watch, and improved communication between citizens and the police department.
Why not spend the $48,550 to police the DDA area with foot and bicycle patrols? Both are community policing and would make people safer in the district. If we measured cost-benefit on both plans, we’d find that the Department of Justice best practices would do more to reduce crime in Hamtramck than video surveillance.
There’s also the issue of protecting our civil liberties. In February 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts city council voted 9-0 against installing a video surveillance system with a $4.6M grant from the Department of Homeland Security. Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor, said, “Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras.”
Unlike the Department of Justice, The Department of Homeland security has spent millions deploying surveillance systems in communities and is suspected of using facial recognition software track immigrants.
Abuse of video surveillance systems is far too common. Two FBI officers in West Virginia were prosecuted for zooming in on teenage girls in a mall dressing room. A San Francisco police officer faces internal charges that he used surveillance cameras and ogle women as they walked through an airport terminal. Without proper controls, Hamtramck’s video surveillance system will also be in danger of abuse.
It is not advisable, necessary, or in the public interest to finance a video surveillance system for the DDA district. There are more effective ways to combat crime. Let’s use our heads here and not jump on the surveillance bandwagon.
Steven Cherry
Hamtramck
