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

Where is it inappropriate to install video cameras?
Where is it inappropriate to install video cameras?

Video cameras are everywhere, and hundreds more are installed every day. Our society appears to be reaching a point of perpetual surveillance. It certainly feels as if we are always being watched even though it is not yet the case. But as cameras are becoming more common than ever, we are also entering a new era of privacy concerns and sensitivities, as evidenced by GDPR and other such initiatives. We presented this quandary to this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: Surveillance cameras can go anywhere, right? Where is it “not OK?”

Development of integrated thermal imaging technology into evolving market verticals
Development of integrated thermal imaging technology into evolving market verticals

Global and domestic threats have highlighted the need for tighter security across all verticals. One of the technologies that has redefined situational awareness and intrusion detection is thermal imaging. Once a technology exclusively manufactured for the military operations, thermal cameras today are deployed across hundreds of security applications and continue to see strong demand in existing and emerging commercial markets. With thermal technology, security personnel can see in complete darkness as well as in light fog, smoke and rain Technology overview and early adoption What distinguishes thermal cameras from optical sensors is their ability to produce images based on infrared energy, or heat, rather than light. By measuring the heat signatures of all objects and capturing minute differences between them, thermal cameras produce clear, sharp video despite unfavorable environmental conditions. With thermal technology, security personnel can see in complete darkness as well as in light fog, smoke and rain. Originally a military developed, commercially qualified technology, the first thermal cameras for military and aircraft use appeared in the 1950s. By the 1960s, the technology had been declassified and the first thermal camera for commercial use was introduced. However, it wasn’t until the late 1990s - when FLIR Systems introduced a camera with an uncooled thermal detector - when the technology began to see substantial adoption beyond government defense deployments. Installations at critical infrastructure sites In the 2000s, industrial companies were some of the first adopters of thermal, using the technology for predictive maintenance to monitor overheating and machine malfunctions. In the years following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, there was an increase in thermal camera installations across critical infrastructure sites. Stricter security requirements drove the deployment of thermal cameras for perimeter protection, especially in the nuclear power sector. Thermal cameras produce clear video in daylight, low light or no light scenarios and their sharp images result in higher performing analytics In 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee released its 73.55 policy, which states nuclear facilities must “provide continuous surveillance, observation and monitoring” as a means to enhance threat detection and deterrence efforts onsite. Because thermal cameras produce clear video in daylight, low light or no light scenarios and because their sharp images result in higher performing analytics, thermal cameras quickly became the preferred option for nuclear facilities. Likewise, following the 2013 sniper attack on PG&E Corporation’s Metcalf transmission substation, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission introduced the Critical Infrastructure Protection Standard 014 (CIP-014). The policy requires utilities to identify threats to mission critical assets and implement a security system to mitigate those risks. This statute also led to more thermal installations in the utility sector as thermal cameras’ long-range capabilities are ideal for detection of approaching targets beyond the fence line. The demand from both industrial and critical infrastructure entities, as well as other factors, helped drive volume production and price reduction for thermal, making the technology more accessible to the commercial security marketplace. Commercial applications In recent years, the increasing affordability of thermal cameras along with the introduction of new thermal offerings has opened the door to new commercial applications for the technology. In the past, thermal cameras were designed for applications with enormous perimeters, where the camera needed to detect a human from 700 meters away. Locations like car dealerships, marinas and construction supply facilities can be protected by precise target detection, thermal analytic cameras providing an early warning to security personnel Today, there are thermal cameras specifically designed for short- to mid-range applications. Developed for small to medium enterprises, these thermal cameras ensure property size and security funds are no longer barriers to adoption. Lumber yards, recreation fields and sports arenas are some of the commercial applications now able to implement thermal cameras for 24-hour monitoring and intrusion detection. Affordable thermal cameras with onboard analytics have become attractive options for commercial businesses Innovation and advancements Innovation and advancements in the core technology have also spurred growth in thermal camera deployment, providing faster image processing, higher resolution, greater video analytic capabilities and better camera performance. In particular, affordable thermal cameras with onboard analytics have become attractive options for commercial businesses that need outdoor, wide area protection. Car dealerships, marinas and construction supply locations all store valuable merchandise and materials outside. Without protection, these assets are vulnerable to vandalism and theft. However, by providing precise target detection, thermal analytic cameras provide an early warning to security personnel so that they can intervene before a crime is committed. By helping to deter just one incident, the thermal solution delivers a clear ROI. New market opportunities Not only are there more thermal cameras in use today than ever before, but there are also more thermal sensors being integrated with other multi-sensor systems, driving the adoption of thermal in new markets. For large perimeter surveillance applications, thermal is repeatedly being integrated with radar and drones to expand situational awareness beyond the point of fixed cameras. Users get immediate, accurate alerts of approaching targets and evidentiary class video for target assessment In the commercial market, thermal imagers are combined with optical sensors, analytics and LED illuminators into one solution that integrates with central monitoring station platforms. By bringing these technologies together, users get immediate, accurate alerts of approaching targets and evidentiary class video for target assessment. The result is a lower number of false positives, reducing the total cost of ownership for the solution. These multi-sensor solutions also feature two-way audio capabilities, which enable remote security officers to act as “virtual guards” and speak to intruders in real-time to dissuade them from illegal activity. The introduction of solutions that integrate all these state-of-the-art technologies under one unit reduces the amount of capital and infrastructure needed for deployment. Consequently, more small businesses and alarm monitoring companies can implement advanced perimeter security technologies like thermal sensors, some for the very first time. Thermal cameras have gone from military defense devices to widespread commercial security cameras Multi-sensor thermal solutions Multi-sensor solutions featuring thermal are quickly gaining traction and opening the door to new business opportunities for the security channel. One of the primary reasons for the strong market interest in these systems is they enable integrators to increase their recurring monthly revenue (RMR). With intense price competition and eroding margins on CCTV equipment, integrators have to rely on RMR to grow their businesses. Offering remote video monitoring services and virtual guarding technologies is one of the best ways to do so.  Additionally, there is a clear demand for it. Central stations are continually looking for new technologies to offer their customers and businesses are interested in economical alternatives to physical guards. In conclusion, thermal cameras have gone from military defense devices to widespread commercial security cameras that are a substantial segment of the outdoor security protection market. From nuclear power plants to construction locations, thermal technology is being implemented to secure sites around the globe.

Highlighting the importance of security integrations and alliances
Highlighting the importance of security integrations and alliances

Most technology companies have one goal in mind: to provide customers with high-quality, affordable products that can efficiently help streamline operations. Whether it's surveillance cameras, video management software, access control technology or any other type of security device, today's leading organisations invest in expertise in these product segments and strive to produce the highest quality solutions. To effectively fulfill this task, technology providers are always searching for emerging components to make their products and services even stronger. Oftentimes, a key aspect necessary to build a comprehensively robust solution involves finding like-minded partners that share a common goal and are willing to work together to create an integration that increases insight and intelligence.The interoperability between systems, devices and different types of applications should be intuitive and fast Key factors for security integrations A basic factor in a partnership is openness. For an integration to perform seamlessly for the end user, the platform through which the technologies converge must follow standard protocols, easily operate with other platforms, allow freedom and customisation, and provide adaptability. The interoperability between systems, devices and different types of applications should be intuitive and fast, enabling more time to be spent on analysing critical data and responding to security events. The puzzle of a complete security solution contains many pieces, and it's often necessary to fuse together aspects from various providers to create a best-in-breed technology offering. When organisations collaborate, the end result is a simplified solution with an increased level of value. As threats become more severe and complex, customers demand solutions that combine different security and business elements into a single interface that can address a wide variety of risks. A unified security system requires a strong collaboration between technology providers and integrated solutions Interconnected security devices Users used to only look at specific security devices - such as cameras or door alarms - as each having a strong, autonomous purpose, but now, every device plays an important interconnected role. And the progression of the Internet of Things (IoT) has made this transition even easier, as maintaining a consistent and uniform communication and interconnectivity between devices has now become the norm. The IoT has also made it so that partnerships must not only exist between manufacturers, but also within the customer's organisational structure. Although exceptionally beneficial, the IoT brings with it an increased amount of cyber vulnerabilities. As security systems are networked to increase flexibility, the door is opened to a number of potential threats that could compromise the entire enterprise. This risk highlights the need for an internal partnership and knowledge sharing between a company's physical security professionals and its IT team. IT experts should be pulled into security decisions and positioned as collaborative partners to assist with software updates, data safety protocols and solving complex network challenges, ultimately leading to a more cyber secure solution.Partnerships are beneficial to both the companies involved and their customers Knowledge sharing and learning Aside from cybersecurity, the latest prominent security attacks and events have focused primarily on soft targets, such as schools, concerts or shopping malls. This has caused many technology providers to venture into different vertical markets, and strong partnerships streamline this crossover. Innovators can extend their geographic reach and purpose through integrations with other like-minded manufacturers or integrators to add new levels of functionalities. Of course, a partnership cannot operate properly and to the best of its ability without a core component: learning. In today's evolving business and risk environment, knowledge is critical. A shared knowledge base can open up new opportunities and lead to the strengthening of security across many levels. A truly powerful, unified security system requires a strong collaboration between technology providers and integrated solutions. Partnerships are beneficial to both the companies involved and their customers, and the results created through these alliances can reach far beyond a user's expectations, offering enhanced flexibility and extensive safety options.