Experts estimate that there are now more than 400,000 surveillance cameras in London, capturing millions of images per day. But the July 7 attacks on the city’s subway system show that even the most closely monitored cities aren’t immune to terrorism. Still, despite their limitations at deterring suicide bombers, video surveillance systems can be effective tools in fighting terrorism.

Video surveillance cameras, or closed-circuit television, have been used throughout America since the 1960s. In the beginning, they were used primarily by banks and other private businesses to monitor suspicious activity. Today cctv systems are being installed in cities across the country in an effort to protect against both terrorists and everyday criminals.

Capt. Al Maroney of the Fresno (Calif.) Police Department, who has extensively studied video surveillance as a law enforcement tool, contends that in the post–9-11 era, the public should protect itself by any reasonable means. Using cameras as another component in the investigative process serves as a deterrent, he says, because it affects the crime triangle: location, victim and opportunity.

"With the use of surveillance cameras, the opportunity component is diminished when a person knows a camera is watching their every move," Maroney says. "Cameras won’t be the ultimate solution, but they are one more tool we can use … and cameras never blink."

And although a February 2005 study by the U.K. Home Office ­indicated that cctv had little effect in deterring crime in most areas, the study's authors claimed that that was due primarily to poor management of the systems. They concluded that when systems are managed properly and used for well-defined purposes, CCTV can be effective.

Chicago might provide a U.S. blueprint for a successful public surveillance system. In just about two years, the city has created an integrated video surveillance system with more than 2,000 cameras, monitored in one central location within the Office of Emergency Management and Communications. Each camera continuously records digital information, which is stored for 15 days.

The surveillance system isn’t limited to a single purpose, explains city spokes­person Monique Bond. "We view the unified camera system as our 'blanket of security,' which includes areas of public safety, traffic management and terrorism. While we use them every day in the area of public safety, you never know when the common criminal could end up being a terrorist."

Bond says Chicago's cameras have far exceeded expectations, with countless requests from communities to put up even more. "As we say, the proof is in the pudding. Crime levels have declined to levels we haven’t seen in 40 years."

Of course, security doesn’t come cheap. Bond reports that each camera costs about $40,000, including maintenance and hardware. She says monitoring costs are not considered significant, because they’re imbedded within the Office of Emergency Management and Communications budget.

To fund the project, nearly $40 million was acquired through dhs grants. The remaining costs were covered by drug forfeiture money, which means, as Bond points out, that Chicago’s criminals helped pay for the system that’s meant to deter them from committing further crimes.

Advances in technology have produced cheaper and smaller cameras, as well as software applications that claim to accurately monitor images for anomalies and could reduce the personnel costs of operating a public surveillance network. In fact, the dhs Science & Technology Directorate has spent about $5 million to help the private sector develop automated surveillance.

Nonetheless, Bond says Chicago prefers to rely on police officers and trained criminal specialists to monitor images, because of the sensitivity of the information and because "they have an eye for what to look for."

Regarding the creation of a national surveillance grid, skepticism reigns.

"If we are detecting the bad guys, that’s what is important," adds Mike Wermuth, director of homeland security at Rand Corp. "It doesn’t make sense to me as a taxpayer to pay for a system that is only going to be turned on if there is a suspected terrorist attack."

In addition, the federal government seems disinclined to orchestrate a nationwide project. "We rely on the state and local governments that each have their own systems in place to address their specific needs," says Marc Short, a dhs spokes­man.

Bond suggests that instead of thinking of a national system versus local systems, cities would deter more terrorists and criminals if there were simply more consistency within systems already in place across the nation.

About the author
Lesley K. McCullough is with the Medill News Service, Chicago