so, just a few short remarks:

- the research results regarding surveillance consistently show that there is little predictable result of surveillance. of course, surveillance introduceses changes and has effects. but to say that “The presence of cameras acts as a deterrent to would be intruders” is not only overly simplified, it’s also not backed up by any study i about surveillance i have seen, at least not as an effect that can be contributed to the cameras. for example, the meta-study i references (“systematic review” from 2002) comes to the conclusion that in those cases few where cameras were effective (mostly car parks) the effects could well be attributed to the enhanced illumination of the area necessary for the cameras. i maintain: cameras are not “effective” in the sense of successful or sustainable, they merely have effects.

- as regarding to speeding with cars, this is certainly a very specific situation, differing starkly from all other forms of surveillance. still, there was an example in austria where there was a “section control” installed at a highway where cars are measured not for momentary speed but for the average speed between two measuring point. the result was that after 9 or so month, the number of accidents involving speeding were up at the same level as before. tickets issued for speeding of course were not. people just learned to get around the surveillance. the same goes for many cases of surveillance. one of the results most scientific studies about CCTV in the UK came up with was that thiefes typically adapted.

- as for the abuse, i was clearly too provoking, and at the same time unspecific in my argument. one thing that goes for most surveillance systems is that the people behind the monitors are not subject to surveillance. as a consequence, they can use pretty much all means available to them to make recordings of the video from the surveillance cameras. often this can be done via equipment that is present, in other cases recorders are brought in and connceted to the system. most the material shown in tv shows of the “americas dumbest burglars” or americas dumbest pedestrians” kind (or whatever they are called) is taken from surveillance systems without autorization. this constitutes one more or less systematic mis-use.

the other mis-use comes from the fact that most surveillance systems are operated privately. as such, these companies are under pressure to show their value by creating as many “incidents” that can be resolved as possible. therefore, typically things that most people don’t care about (and some do, but not enough to really do something about it) such as peeing in a park or between cars, throwing away litter and other kinds of “social crime” are suddenly brought to our (and the police’s) attention because of this conflict of interest we have here. i would call this anther form of mis-use.

also, this shows that of course such systems can be very effective, but in most cases, not in the way intended. as numerous studies in the uk show, the widespread CCTV systems have done nothing to enhance security on the streets or even solve most crimes that happen. what they have done is chance the environment we live in in a very subtle and, for many, aggravating way.

ok, even though i planned to write only a few short remarks, this has become somewhat lenghtish. given that you obviously have a stake in such systems, i still believe that we both won’t budge much. otoh, i am very curious about how the discussion will evolve (if it does).

(b) the records are useless if you want to solve the crime;
This is another clearly incorrect assertion that only requires a single counter example to refute. Aside from speed cameras we have the impact that the cameras around London (put there to identify IRA car bombs) had on car thieves. The cameras recognized license numbers and checked them against cars reported as stolen. Car thieves soon learned not to drive into London. (Would that be deterrence by the way?) There is also the thousands of examples of robbers robbing banks and/or shops and getting “caught on camera”. Caught on camera is even a cliché, and you maintain it doesn’t happen?

(c) the recordings are subject to regular abuse by the persons watching
I have no axe to grind here, but this generalization also seems to be a huge stretch to me. Most surveillance systems simply are not linked to video editing suites, so I’m not sure what abuse you’re talking about. In any event I have no axe to grind here. The simple fact is that camera surveillance is a tool and it can be abused – just like a hammer. Regular abuse seems like a huge stretch to me.

Finally..
I find arguments of this kind deeply worrying. There is undoubtedly a Big Brother tendency in the UK and the US that needs to be opposed. Those who argue that cameras are ineffective when they obviously are not, are doing a terrible disservice to civil liberties.
Personally I oppose the general surveillance of citizens because it is indeed effective, not because it is ineffective.

(a) video surveillance does generally not act as a deterrent;
(b) the records are useless if you want to solve the crime;
(c) the recordings are subject to regular abuse by the persons watching.

all this can be read from the various studies that have been conducted on the massive use of CCTV in england; also, other studies have shown the same results. there might be local variations and exceptions in isolated use, but in general, your “truth” are not.

let me give you a couple of scientific ressources to show that i didn’t just invent that for some reason:

Welsh & Farrington: Crime prevention e?ects of closed circuit television: a systematic review, 2002

Sir Simon Davies, Enquiry into digital images as evidence, 1997

one good article about the uselessness in solving crimes:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do

and an overview of “doesn’t work”-articles:

http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html