Each day, as you go about your life, it's likely you'll make a guest appearance on at least 300 different CCTV screens.  Britain now has more security cameras than any other country, yet their impact on crime rates is negligible, while our fear of crime is still rising.  So have these screen saviours been a flop?  Jay Rayner of The Observer goes behind the cameras to meet the men who watch our every move.

I am walking through London Bridge Underground station when a public announcement brings me to a halt.  It starts politely - "Ladies and gentlemen ..."- before lurching into something a New York shrink might well call passive-aggressive: "Please be aware that, for your safety, this station is monitored with closed-circuit television.'"  You do not need to be a professor of linguistics to be intrigued by the circumlocutions of that one.  There's the stern tones of  "please be aware'"chased by the motherliness of "for your safety".  Finally, there's the blatant threat of the hardware.  This was clearly two messages in one.  What I was supposed to hear was: "This place is safe."  What the criminals thronging around me were supposed to hear was:  "Oi! Bad people: don't even think of doing anything dodgy in our station because we are watching you." And they are. 

I scan the ceiling and quickly find more than a dozen cameras, some obvious in their rectangular white housing with the Tube logo on the outside, others disguised behind black domes.  I should not be surprised to find them here.  There are more than 6,000 CCTV cameras across London's Tube network, which transport bosses say will rise to 12,000 over the next five years.  I step outside the station and look up at the "CCTV Zone", that space six feet above our heads, between ground and first floor, where the cameras seem to grow like so much mould on year-old jam.   Again they are everywhere: peering down at bank doorways and over cash machines; looking down the aisles of my local supermarket; tucked into the ceiling at the newsagent's.  There is a man near where I live who has one on the outside of his house.  Again, I shouldn't be surprised. 

Britain is CCTV nation.  We have more of them than anywhere else in the world.  How many more nobody can say.  It has been claimed, time and again, that there are four million cameras in Britain and that we are each of us likely to be caught on them 300 times a day, though even the academic who came up with those numbers admits he doesn't know for sure.

CCTV doesn't solve problems. It's the people who catch criminals, not the cameras.

Ask the Austrians whether they think CCTV is a good thing, and only 24 per cent of them will say yes.  Ask the British the same question and 90 per cent will give the thumbs up.  More than half of us are happy to have them in public toilets, as against just 1.5 per cent of the Austrians.  Two-thirds of us want them on our street.  We like to be watched.  We want to be watched.  Or at least you do.  Me, I'm not at all happy about it.  Conventional wisdom has it that if you're not up to anything bad you shouldn't have a problem with being on camera.  "In terms of providing people both with security and a sense of security, this is a good investment," Lord Falconer has said, on behalf of the government.

Surely, though, there are levels of naughtiness?  Yes, if I'm mugging old ladies or car jacking, I should be in fear of the law.  But what if this impeccably liberal Observer journalist wanted to sneak out and buy a copy of The Sun or Nuts magazine so I could look at pictures of girls in their pants without anyone knowing?  Or slack off to KFC to load up on the Colonel's fat-and-carb combo, as a little light relief from the prissy platefuls I have to swallow as a restaurant critic?  These aren't criminal acts, but they are things I might not wish anybody to know about.  And yet I probably couldn't get away with them today because somewhere there will be a camera watching me.  I suddenly feel like my private space has shrunk and that the Great British Public has allowed it to happen.  And I want to know why.

Croydon might be able to offer some answers at its peak, Croydon council operated a network of nearly 500 cameras, reputedly the largest single system in the country, though, as ever with CCTV, no one is entirely sure.  "We don't blow our own trumpet," says Norman Whalley, the council's systems officer, "But yes, it's pretty big."   When he came here 13 years ago there were just 30 cameras, but he has built it up gradually over the past decade at a cost of £7m.   Recently, National Car Parks took back the management of around 200 of those cameras, but Whalley still oversees 96 fixed and 145 so-called "pan, tilt and zoom" cameras, which can be directed from the security control room at the council offices here in the centre of Croydon.

He talks enthusiastically about the various systems used.  Those that are close by broadcast on microwaves straight into the control room.  Others come in on the equivalent of broadband.  Some of the cameras are the council's own.  Others belong to Transport for London and are used for traffic monitoring, or enforcement of bus lanes, but they can all be watched here.  The police have access to them, too.  Next to us, Paul, who has worked here for 19 years and his colleague Vince, who has done it for three, flick between screens: traffic rumbling through the suburbs, or mothers pushing toddlers in buggies.  Beside us is a wall of video tapes, six feet high and the same across.  Whalley says they hold everything for 31 days. 


Nevertheless, is it really possible to catch everything that's happening, sat in front of the monitors hour after hour?  "You don't focus on the same image all day," Paul says. "You're flicking with your eyes all the time. After a while it becomes intuition. What draws your attention is someone's walking pattern."   Whalley agrees:  "If a man is walking too close to a girl it might be a pickpocket," he says, and the others nod.  "You notice things other people don't,"says Vince.  "People just lead their lives going from A to B.  They don't see what happens in between."

They talk about the crimes they have seen and the way they can tell the police exactly what's going on, if a fight breaks out on a Saturday night, so they know how many officers to send over.  It helps them deploy resources.  Paul isn't there to interfere with what people are doing, he says.  He's looking after them.  Sometimes in the early hours on a weekend he'll see a group of young women, clearly drunk, on their way home.  Often one will peel off to go home alone.  "I stay with her," Paul says. "Following her on each camera as she passes by it, just making sure she's OK,"

Norman takes me to the new control room, and lets me operate a camera.  These are powerful pieces of kit, as they should be at over £4,000 each.  The pictures are in colour and are almost of broadcast quality.  "Each camera has the ability to identify someone of 1.5m in height at a distance of 150m," he says, proudly.  We use one to close in on the menu outside a cafe.  The camera is more than 100m away from the sign but I can still tell that lasagne and chips costs £3.90.  Now I pick up a woman walking down the street towards the lens.  Simply because I can, I begin to follow her, using the joy stick to pan down.

I don't admit it to Norman, but there is something deeply intoxicating about being able to do this; to sit here so many miles away, moving a camera to watch in detail as someone goes oblivious about their day.  It feels somehow as if I am not just controlling the camera, but controlling the woman, too.  Norman rests his hand on my shoulder and says, "I think you should stop that."  I shove the camera away from the woman so it looks back up the street.  I think about Paul, looking out for those lone women on their way home, an electronic version of the angels in Wim Wenders's Wings of Desire.  And I wonder whether the problem is not with CCTV or the way it is used but with the way that I, with my tendency to paranoia, imagine it might be, which is a different thing entirely.

And then I remember Sally Anne Bowman.  Sally Anne, a promising model, was sexually assaulted and knifed to death last September, a short distance form her home in South Croydon.  There was CCTV footage of her that evening: she was seen at Lloyds Bar in Croydon.  She was seen leaving a club at about 1am.  She was seen coming back into Croydon by taxi, where she was picked up by her ex-boyfriend who drove her home.  All of this was captured on CCTV.  After that, the pictures stopped.  Sally Anne was killed on a quiet street where there were no cameras.  Police are still hunting for her killer.

Though the cameras failed to help in the case of Sally Anne, CCTV is still seen as a Very Good Thing and, to understand why, we have to go back 13 years to the murder of Jamie Bulger. "When the abduction happened and we got those incredibly grainy images of Bulger being led away," says Peter Fry of the CCTV User Group, "the cameras became a major player in a horrific event."  For a week, those pictures came into our homes and we came to understand that, through these images, the police had been able to establish that the toddler's abductors were children.  Clive Norris, Professor of Sociology at Sheffield University, has undertaken detailed research into the use of CCTV in Britain."  A moral panic about rising crime rates and what could be done about it accompanied the Bulger case," he says. But those pictures also held promise."

Up to that point, CCTV was rare in Britain.  A few cameras were introduced in the Fifties to watch traffic and, by the early Nineties, a couple of local authorities, led by entrepreneurial local politicians, had introduced small schemes.  Now, officials within the Crime Prevention Unit of the Home Office began looking at what CCTV could do for them.  In 1994 a set of guidelines called CCTV Looking Out For You was published by Michael Howard's Home Office.

On the back cover it announced a city challenge competition, offering a fund of £2m for new CCTV projects which had to be matched with local money. "We were completely overwhelmed with applications," says Philip Edwards, a former Dixons executive who had been seconded to the Home Office and who co-wrote the guidelines.  So there were more competitions and each one was over-subscribed.  Between 1994 and 1997 £45m of government funds was pledged to CCTV, all of which had to be matched locally.  Since then, New Labour has spent another £170m.

"This is one of the reasons CCTV grew so strongly here as against in other European countries," says Norris. "It was centrally funded."  The other reason was a complete lack of regulation.  In places like Germany or Scandinavia a right to privacy is written into the constitution.  Here, the only legislation that affected CCTV was a relaxation of the planning laws.  Among other things the legislation was designed to make it easier to put up mobile-phone masts to help the networks spread.  As a result, the CCTV cameras spread, too.  "The planning laws also resulted in the death of town centres," says Norris.  "And out-of-town shopping centres became the icon of the age."  Town centres wanted to look as shiny and secure as the out-of-town shopping centres to attract the retailers back.  A thrilling CCTV system seemed to be the best way to make that impression.  It was Norris who, in 1998, came up with the estimates of how many cameras there then were in Britain - more than 4 million - and how many times each of us might be caught on them - 300.  "It's interesting to see those numbers repeated in the media, because they can be described only as guestimates," he says.

Surveillance obsessed?  

February 2003
Geoffrey Peck receives over £7,000 in compensation from his local council because they gave the media CCTV images of him taken on a night he wandered along Brentwood High Street, in a depressed state, and attempted suicide.  The council wanted to publicise the value of CCTV.  Mr Peck argued successfully that his privacy had been infringed.

November 2005
Wayne Rooney is caught at a club, allegedly kissing a woman who isn't his girlfriend.  The images end up in The Sun.

September 2005
Two thieves are caught on CCTV digging up nine Leylandii trees in Leicestershire, a year after they were planted, to replace others stolen.

 

In the Nineties, before heading up the CCTV User Group, Peter Fry was director of operations for Hart District Council in Northamptonshire.  "We had a lower-than-average crime rate but our local councillors were still very keen on having CCTV."  The story was repeated across the country.  It didn't matter whether it actually did reduce crime - they wanted it anyway.  In 1996, after Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children in Dunblane, Philip Edwards at the Home Office received countless requests for CCTV to be installed in schools.  When he asked why, they said it would stop another Dunblane happening.  "I told them it wouldn't.  All it would have done at Dunblane was let you watch it happen.  CCTV doesn't solve problems.  It's the people who catch criminals, not the cameras."

The statistics on crime bear this out.  It is true that since 1995 overall crime rates have been dropping in the UK.  But a major survey of 14 CCTV schemes published last year showed their impact on local crime rates was either negligible or that crime rates actually went up.  At the same time fear of crime has also gone up.  Meanwhile, clear-up rates - the number of crimes that the police solve - have gone down.

Of course, only a fool would argue that CCTV can have no impact on crime.  We all saw the images after the London bombings of 7 July.  Rarely does a week go by without an aspect of some grisly outrage or other being picked up on cameras.  As Norris puts it, "If you ask leading policemen whether they would rather have CCTV than not, they will always say yes."

All that aside, one thing is certain:  we, its subjects, genuinely do like some of what those cameras pick up.  In 2001 an enterprising video producer released Caught in the Act!, a compilation of people shagging in doorways, as recorded by CCTV cameras.  It sold very nicely, thank you.  Likewise TV shows full of footage of drivers doing stupid things on the roads get huge audiences and then came the phenomenon that is Big Brother.  Indeed, CCTV may be one of the first pieces of technology to have directly influenced fashion: after all, what better way is there to hide your identity from the cameras than inside a hoodie?

To see the future of CCTV we need to go to Spitalfields in east London, where the Shoreditch Trust, a local regeneration agency, is piloting a new initiative: CCTV for the masses.  Instead of the images only being seen by the likes of Norman Whalley and his team, local residents will be able to watch them, too, on a broadband connection.  For all its hip associations, the area is actually the second most deprived in London.  The Shoreditch Trust, set up under the government's New Deal for Communities programme, works with residents to improve everything from education and housing to opportunities for businesses.

One of the problems is that, because of low incomes, few households have access to technology.  Hence the Digital Bridge, a cheap broadband connection offering everything from video on demand to email to, yes, CCTV images of the local community.  The hardware and all the services will cost around £3.50 a week.

The cameras are part of a channel called Safe and Sound.  In the pilot there will be 11 cameras.  Eventually there will be up to 400 across the area.  "The demand for this comes directly from the residents," says Dan Hodges of the Shoreditch Trust.  "Crime is falling but fear of crime is rising and the moment we suggested we could do this the response was really positive.  It surprised us."  In the middle of the screen is a shot of a local high street.  At the bottom are other images which the viewer can bring up.  But here's the thing: they will not be able to zoom in using the cameras.  They will not be able to tilt and pan.  They can only look at what they're given and that's not very much.  "There have to be safeguards," Hodges says.  "People won't be able to watch each other's homes.  There are clear civil liberties issues involved."

Later, I go for a walk around the area with Michael Pyner, chief executive of the Shoreditch Trust.  He wants me to understand what this patch of the city looks like; that it's really not just warehouse apartments and design consultancies.  "This is an opportunity for people to empower themselves,"  he says of the CCTV project.  "We've had accusations that it's Big Brother, but it's not.  It's Little Brother.  Everyone gets to look."  Except that, because of the restrictions, it won't actually help solve crime.  "No, but it may help solve the fear of crime.   Look, it may not work.   In two years' time people may still be scared.   At which point we'll say this wasn't the solution."  Now, though, local residents are very keen.

There are more than 6,000 CCTV cameras across London's tube network, which transport bosses say will rise to 12,000 over the next five years

Afterwards I return to Haberdasher Street, one of the roads which will be part of the scheme .  It seems to me a CCTV camera is only a substitute for being able to stand in that location watching what's going on for yourself.  Thus, Christopher Isherwood style, I will be a camera.  I want to see what is so intriguing about this street, what exactly will make it so damned watchable.  I stand there for half an hour.  It all seems pretty innocent.

Then I realise there is something suspicious here: it is a large, dark man in a black jacket.  He has a notebook in his hands and he is staring up and down the street.  That man is me.  Other than that Haberdasher Street is now empty.  No people, let alone any crimes.  It's time to go home.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.

Download PDF version

In case you missed it

How Internet of Things (IoT) aids facility management and physical security
How Internet of Things (IoT) aids facility management and physical security

As buildings become more complex and smarter, the age-old traditional maintenance methods that are based mostly on hands-on human monitoring are becoming more and more inadequate. Instead, the world is fast adopting building automation as a key component of smarter and more proactive maintenance strategies. The aim is to free up maintenance staff and give them time to focus on other tasks while machines monitor the different systems that work together to make the facility functional. Specifically, Internet of Things - or, IoT - enablement appears set to transform the way facility managers deliver service to building occupants. The trends are many and the possibilities are almost mind-boggling, from inventory management, to work scheduling and energy efficiency, the list goes on and on. Below, we look at a few ways in which IoT is being used for Facility Management and Security. Revolutionise maintenance through condition-based maintenance For years now, the norm among maintenance professionals has been a time-based approach, or in simpler terms, performing maintenance operations after a set period of time. But a major flaw of this system is that components were being replaced periodically whether the parts were actually worn out or not. Of course, that meant some of these maintenance activities simply weren’t cost-effective. To avoid this waste from continuing, a subset of IoT known as IIoT can now be used to optimise the maintenance process. IIoT works as a centralised network of connected systems and devices that can talk to one another and generate and relay data Rather than changing parts on a time-based schedule, IIoT works as a centralised network of connected systems and devices that can talk to one another and generate and relay data. Selected equipment are fitted with sensors that monitor specific operational parameters and let maintenance professionals know how the machines under supervision are working, understand their current condition, and then pinpoint the optimum time they need to be maintained. The information generated this way is vital as it allows maintenance staff to intervene just in time to avoid costly downtime and other associated inconveniences. This is, in a nutshell, the basics of predictive maintenance and condition-based maintenance. These days, by implementing condition-based maintenance, IIoT is being used to effectively monitor a wide range of systems such as lighting, HVAC, fire suppression, security, etc. The applications are numerous and so are the benefits. On page 52 of this guide by the US Department of Energy, they state that a functional predictive maintenance program could yield up to 10 times ROI, reduce maintenance costs by 25% to 30%, and reduce downtime by 35% to 45% Along with fire suppression, IIoT is effectively monitoring a wide range of systems such as lighting, HVAC and security Remote monitoring of facilities Physical inspections have been a critical condition for the success of conventional maintenance programs, even in hazardous environments. But, with the increasing emphasis on personnel safety, organisations want alternative solutions that allow staff to examine assets without being physically present. Facility managers and their team working in industries like manufacturing, oil and gas, and mining can relate with these constraints. And these industries can benefit greatly from deploying predictive maintenance solutions. For example, in the oil and gas industry, IIoT sensors can be used to monitor remote and highly critical assets. These sensors can be used on pipelines to detect anomalies (especially corrosion) and pass that information to supervisors for necessary action. By doing this, potential failures are quickly predicted to avoid often disastrous incidents. Managing energy consumption Sensors are also being embedded in building components and devices like HVAC systems, lights, doors, windows to understand energy consumption and proactively manage it. Facilities that use this technology could achieve substantial energy savings. In a press release by IT research and advisory company, Gartner, they stated that IoT can help reduce the cost of energy - as well as spatial management and building maintenance - by up to 30%. Looking at HVAC systems very closely, we see that they are a major source of energy usage in any building These sensors work by monitoring different conditions in the building and causing a power-saving action based on the data received. For instance, occupancy sensors can order lights to turn on when it senses motion in a room and then turn off the same lights when there is no presence there. That way, there is no need to wait for someone to remember to switch off the lights when they are not needed.   Another very common use is in HVAC monitoring. Looking at HVAC systems very closely, we see that they are a major source of energy usage in any building. So, the issue is how can one use IIoT to manage HVAC and possibly reduce their energy usage? Well, in its most common form, IoT-enabled HVAC works as a connection of sensors and thermostats that monitor factors like indoor air quality, temperature, and environmental changes then communicate with the rest of the HVAC equipment and make needed adjustments for occupants’ comfort. Not only that. IoT-enabled HVAC works as a connection of sensors and thermostats that monitor factors like indoor air quality, temperature, and environmental changes The technology can be configured to: Track energy consumption at different distribution points throughout the building. Track usage from the power source right down to the consumption point. Detect sudden voltage drops or spikes (usually an indication of some fault). These are essential benefits because HVAC units are notorious for consuming large amounts of energy when they are working inefficiently. Security and access control Smart surveillance is another important area of application for IoT in facilities management. It takes several forms such as the monitoring of life-saving systems like intruder or fire alarms, invisible barriers, and other safety installations. Facility managers are using IoT across different industries to obtain live information about potential emergency situations with a view to responding before the issue escalates. In such cases, quick detection of any strange activity is key because many of these installations have tangible negative effects when they fail or when they are intentionally sabotaged.Smart surveillance is another important area of application for IoT in facilities management Fortunately, the surveillance equipment can also be setup to send alerts to mobile phones to aid emergency response or evacuation as the case may be. Smart surveillance is also priceless for monitoring the situation in partially or fully automated remote facilities (especially oil and gas installations and mines), and in hostile environments with critical equipment where humans cannot work for extended periods of time. If you are not yet using IoT in your facility, you may be wondering where to start from. To avoid getting overwhelmed, a good place to start would be to try a small-scale deployment of this technology then review its ROI and impact on your operations before adopting a more widespread IoT implementation. This way you can gradually scale up as you and your staff come to understand and adapt and to this new way of doing things.

Is the physical security industry doing enough to prevent school shootings?
Is the physical security industry doing enough to prevent school shootings?

School shootings continue, as does a search for answers. What solutions are there to prevent school shootings and/or to improve the response (and thus minimise the death toll)?  In the physical security industry, we like to think we have solutions that can help, if not “solve”, the problem, but realistically speaking, how effective are they at the end of the day? We like to think we have solutions that can help, if not “solve”, the problem: but how effective are they at the end of the day? The sad answer – even after dozens of school shootings and even in the wrenching aftermath of the latest one – is that we don’t know. There is a gaping lack of knowledge and research when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of preventative measures as they relate to school shootings. Scarce resources on preventative measures The dearth of knowledge on the subject leaves schools at risk of spending scarce resources on measures that don’t have any real impact, or worse, that have a negative effect on education environments. The natural impulse following a school shooting is to do something – anything – to prevent the tragedy from happening again at any school, but especially at my school. But how is money best spent?Successful businesses are a good thing, but not at the expense of misspending education resources on solutions that don’t solve anything Congress has passed the Stop School Violence Act of 2018 to provide $50 million per year to develop programs to train students, teachers and law enforcement to prevent violence, and to create anonymous reporting systems, such as hot lines, for school violence threats. The bill authorises another $25 million for improvements to school’s physical security infrastructures. Congress also provides $1.1 billion in Title IV block grants, which districts can use to pay for diverse needs such as security systems. Several states are providing additional funding for physical safety measures and campus police, and local districts are also stretching their budgets to address security concerns. But is that money being targeted to measures that will help the situation? What is the role of technology in preventing school violence, and are we as an industry at risk of over-selling our preventative capabilities and diverting money from other measures that might have more impact? Successful businesses are a good thing, but not at the expense of misspending education resources on solutions that don’t solve anything. More metal detectors, armed guards and police officers could cause anxiety in some students and even interfere with the learning process Studies on school safety and protection Researchers, advocates and educators gathered this fall at American University to consider the need for better research to inform decision-making on safety, reported Education Week.The field is in desperate need of more evidence on what works, and schools want this information presented to them" A 2016 study by the Rand Corp. points to the problem: Lack of data and research on what works and what doesn’t. “Despite growth in the school safety-technology sector, rigorous research about the effectiveness of these technologies is virtually non-existent,” according to Rand. “The field is in desperate need of more evidence on what works, and schools want this information presented to them in vetted, digestible ways to help them with procurement.” Jeremy Finn, a professor of education at the University of Buffalo, has pointed out the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of measures designed to deter events that likely won’t occur anyway. “How do you know when you have deterred a school shooting?” he asks. “It didn’t happen.” The effects on our students  Might technologies aimed at making schools more secure have an adverse effect on the learning environment? More metal detectors, armed guards and police officers could cause anxiety in some students and even interfere with the learning process. The physical security industry should freely acknowledge that the technologies we offer are only part of the solution to school violence Do security measures aimed at preventing active shooting incidents absorb resources that might better be used to address a more general and/or likely security threat such as vandalism or student discipline? Theoretically, security measures in general should help to prevent the probability of an active shooter at the same time they are addressing a wider range of concerns and threats. But do they? At the very least, we in the physical security market should be aware, and should freely acknowledge, that the technologies we offer are only part of the solution to school violence. Schools should take the broadest possible approach to the range of security challenges, and technology should be one tool among many. Furthermore, better data to measure what works is sorely needed to illuminate the best path forward.

How can the physical security market promote better employee retention?
How can the physical security market promote better employee retention?

Employee turnover is a problem for many companies, especially among younger employees who have not developed the philosophy of employer loyalty that was common in previous generations. Nowadays, changing jobs is the norm. The idea of spending decades working for a single employer seems almost quaint in today’s economy. However, excessive employee turnover can be expensive for employers, who are looking for ways to keep their brightest and best employees happily toiling away as long as possible. We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: How can the physical security market promote better employee retention in a competitive employment environment?