printer friendly version

CCTV and the issue of public protection

CCTV has been in the headlines recently with the hijacking of a family at one of the country's toll road offramps. The existing CCTV system appears to address the toll plaza needs of identifying road users who violate toll requirements rather than viewing the surroundings and public areas near the toll.

Much of the public questioning of the toll plaza CCTV facilities on TV, radio and in newspapers was why cameras were not directed at a known hot spot where hijackings had previously occurred. That such questions are being asked indicates the public appreciation of CCTV in South Africa and growing expectations of CCTV for public safety purposes. Whether or not the toll company should have put up cameras to cover the area and what kind of monitoring should have occurred is not going to be debated in this article, but this issue has implications for all of us in the industry.

The CCTV industry in the UK has been dominated by a focus on getting public support. The industry is highly sensitive to accusations of 'big brother', and police and town centre schemes have gone out of their way to maintain a broad base of support among the British public. The implication is that the lack of support will create many more issues and confrontations than a well managed public image. The popularity of CCTV in the UK really took off with the apprehension of the killers of young Jamie Bulgar based on CCTV footage recorded at a local shopping centre. With 'guesstimates' by researchers at Sheffield University of 4,25 million cameras on the streets of the UK, it has achieved massive penetration into society. Cases like the Brixton Bomber resulted in hundreds of CCTV video cassettes from surrounding shops and commercial premises being obtained after the bombing. Information gathered from these assisted in the apprehension of the perpetrator. More recently, CCTV footage was retrieved for the investigation into the killing of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, two 10-year-old English schoolgirls. For much of the UK general public, CCTV is about the protection of society and it constantly demonstrates its effectiveness.

South Africa has primarily had an industry-driven CCTV business, although town centre schemes are becoming increasingly important. We have not focused on the public interest to nearly the same extent and we have often been found wanting. Failed or broken equipment or tapes and poor picture quality are common stories in instances from bomb blasts in restaurants to bank robberies. In the case of Ellis Park, the lack of CCTV to help prevent the disaster resulting in a number of deaths is in stark contrast to UK football grounds, which have had CCTV on government recommendation for years now. Companies are often prompted to initiate CCTV to protect their own interests, but inevitably the public is being exposed to cameras as part of their daily life and sometimes the exposure includes an episode where a member of the public is a victim of crime in the view of such cameras. Companies are increasingly putting up signs that say 'CCTV is in operation here' or 'This area is being monitored by CCTV for your protection'. We can expect the public to be more demanding given such statements - companies are creating an expectation of protection.

What are the implications of these public expectations?

Certainly the toll plaza example indicates that where businesses impact on a public area in a way that creates an increase in potential danger to the public, they are expected to address such issues. Whether you think this is realistic or not, we are likely to see operational requirements of camera systems not just being based solely on the company interest, but relating to the security of the areas around them. I already know of at least one major intersection in Johannesburg that is monitored constantly by company CCTV cameras with signs to that effect - to protect employees coming to work and visitors to the company. By doing so, however, the company is taking the performance of their systems into the public domain. Whether it is the street outside or an entire city block, company CCTV systems that view public areas are potentially going to be put under public scrutiny should an incident occur. The use of dummy cameras is a controversial aspect that is also likely to be impacted on by these signs saying that CCTV is in operation. By creating an understanding or impression that an area is under surveillance, a company may in fact be creating a false sense of security in people or tenants that the area is protected.

Alternatively, if something does happen, there is an expectation that whoever committed the crime can be identified and apprehended. A company in the UK has already been successfully challenged in court by a victim who had been standing under a dummy camera and thought she was safe, but was attacked and wanted the evidence. We can expect similar things here when people ask for video evidence after being robbed only to be told that the camera is for show only, or that the CCTV system was not capable of recording the images for some reason.

You be the judge

What this all means is that CCTV systems are increasingly going to have an additional auditor - the public. Where a company says that the equipment did not work, or that the tape was faulty (after recording continually for two months), or that it is impossible to get an appropriate ID of the criminals who may have perpetrated a crime because of a wrong camera lens, they will be held responsible. This responsibility may be legal, or it may simply be an impact on the reputation of the security manager, or even of the company image and the brands it represents. Further, the public is likely to increasingly define some of the operational requirements of the CCTV system in terms of increased protection of the community in which companies are sited or do business. This trend is already reflected in court decisions in Cape Town which hold the operating transport company responsible for the security within its trains. Companies that already operate to high standards of performance are likely to take such issues in their stride. However, everyone needs to look at system requirements a little more closely. These can include whether CCTV is delivering appropriate images, how these are monitored, maintenance schedules and whether these are adhered to, the competence of the operator and training required, the existence and use of procedures, logging and event management, and the handling of evidence in the event that something does happen. Much of this has to do with 'best practice' and these concepts are key to the success of any CCTV scheme. Scenarios under which public demands may occur also probably need to be thought through, along with company policy in terms of handling such involvement. Ultimately, however, the quality of performance of our CCTV systems is as much in our own interest as that of the public and we all share the desire for effective working systems.

For more information contact Craig Donald, Leaderware, 011 787 7811, [email protected], www.leaderware.com

Dr Craig Donald is an industrial psychologist and specialist in human factors in security and CCTV. He is the co-developer of the Surveillance and Monitoring Assessment Exercise (SAMAE) for the selection and placement of CCTV operators and presenter of the CCTV Surveillance Skills training course.

Share this article:

Further reading: