Video Surveillance and Public Safety: Fact versus Fiction
In the aftermath of the Munich attack, the Munich Police Union has called for increased video surveillance in public spaces. The union’s federal chairman, Florian Leitner, told the local news portal Der Westen that people "like to hide behind data protection," but video surveillance is "imperative." The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has also argued for expanded video surveillance in its election manifesto, stating that everyone should feel safe in their daily lives, at work, and during leisure time. The party proposes increased monitoring of public danger zones and the implementation of automatic facial recognition systems at train stations, airports, and other crime hotspots.
However, does video surveillance genuinely enhance public safety? Recent data suggests otherwise. According to the 2023 crime statistics for Germany, overall crime rates have risen. Cases of dangerous and severe bodily harm on streets, paths, or squares increased by nearly 13% compared to the previous year. Knife attacks have also increased, from 8,160 in 2022 to 8,951 in 2023. The report attributes this rise to the easing of COVID-19 restrictions, which has created more opportunities for criminal activity.
Despite claims from security authorities that video surveillance effectively combats crime in public spaces, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence to support this assertion. Experts point out the absence of independent long-term studies on the efficacy of video surveillance in Germany. In a 2022 article in the journal Kriminologie, the authors argue that research on the topic has dwindled despite the growing number of police-operated video cameras.
Experts distinguish between objectively measurable safety, such as crime statistics, and the subjective perception of safety among the population. It is challenging to objectively determine how much video cameras enhance public safety due to the influence of numerous external factors, including the location, time, and individuals being recorded. Surveillance is often concentrated in areas with higher crime rates, making it difficult to isolate the impact of the cameras themselves. Similarly, it is not straightforward to attribute changes in perceived safety solely to video surveillance, as increased covert and overt police presence may also contribute to such shifts.
It may be necessary to evaluate the success of video surveillance based on its intended objectives. The positive reports from police authorities suggest that video surveillance can be helpful in identifying perpetrators after a crime has occurred. "Such recordings make it easier to identify individuals in a legally sound manner," said Jürgen Bering, a lawyer for the Society for Civil Rights (GFF), a non-profit organization that advocates for human and fundamental rights.
However, video surveillance falls short in preventing crimes from happening in the first place. "Video surveillance has minimal deterrent effect," said Bering. This applies to crimes committed impulsively, under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Moreover, terrorist attacks by lone actors, such as the recent vehicle attacks in Munich and Magdeburg, cannot be prevented by video surveillance alone. Other crimes, such as drug dealing, may simply relocate to areas not covered by fixed cameras, argues Bering.
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Video surveillance offers both potential benefits and drawbacks:
Benefits:
- Can assist in identifying perpetrators and gathering evidence after a crime.
- May provide a sense of security and deter certain types of crime.
Drawbacks:
- 侵犯隐私: Video surveillance can infringe on privacy rights by recording individuals without their knowledge or consent.
- Ineffective as a crime deterrent: It can be ineffective in deterring impulsive crimes or preventing premeditated attacks.
- Ineffective for some types of crime: Certain crimes, such as drug dealing, may only shift to areas not monitored by cameras.
Striking a Balance
The decision of whether or not to expand video surveillance in public spaces requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and drawbacks. It is essential to strike a balance between enhancing public safety and preserving individual privacy and civil liberties.
Recommendations
To ensure the responsible use of video surveillance, it is recommended to:
- Implement strict regulations and guidelines for the use of video surveillance.
- Ensure transparency and accountability by informing the public about the scope and purpose of video surveillance systems.
- Limit the use of video surveillance to areas where there is a clear and demonstrable need for enhanced security.
- Provide individuals with clear and accessible information about their rights regarding video surveillance.
- Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of video surveillance systems and make adjustments as needed.
Conclusion
While video surveillance can be a useful tool for law enforcement, it is not a panacea for preventing crime. It is essential to approach the use of video surveillance with caution, carefully weighing the potential benefits against the risks to privacy and civil liberties. By striking a balance between security and individual rights, we can create safer communities without sacrificing fundamental freedoms.
