Berkeley Releases Study on San Francisco Cameras : denialism blog

Profile

Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.

Chris Hoofnagle is a recovering Washington, DC lawyer and information privacy law expert at UC-Berkeley Law School. Denialism became apparent to him while working on consumer protection laws in Washington. The Denialists' Deck of Cards is essentially a how-to guide for being an industry lobbyist.

PalMD is a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States. Aside from the great joy he finds in his family and his work, he likes communicating some of that joy to others. He has a special interest in the ways patients---and we are all patients at one time or another---are deceived by charlatans. He aims to change the world, one reader at a time. Previous writings can still be found here.

Please read the DISCLAIMERS.

HONcode Certified

This blog is hosted by SEED Media Group; ad space on the top and right side belongs to them. The rest of the content is HONcode certified.

We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.

Search

Other

« Monday, Monday, or "A day in the life" | Main | 6 Cases of Shameless False Advertising »

Berkeley Releases Study on San Francisco Cameras

Category: Privacy
Posted on: January 12, 2009 6:33 PM, by Chris H

I am really proud of my colleagues here at UC Berkeley for performing a first of its kind (in the US) study of the efficacy of police surveillance cameras. Its findings are limited to San Francisco's system, but it is valuable in thinking through whether and how surveillance cameras should be implemented. I have to be careful about characterizing it, but here is an article in the Chronicle on its findings, and the full report is here (8.9 MB PDF). The authors explain: "...The findings include a determination that while the program decreased property crime within the view of the cameras by twenty percent, other forms of crime, including violent crime, one of the primary targets of the program, were not affected."

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

What a surprise, not. Violent crimes are not committed by people who are thinking clearly, and who care about consequences beyond the act itself.

Posted by: Paul Murray | January 12, 2009 9:36 PM

@Paul, yes, that's exactly it, but to my knowledge, no one has shown the effects of cameras with real crime statistics. This study only speaks to SF cameras, but in other jurisdictions, the chance for a reduction in violent crime can become a compelling motivation for camera systems.

Posted by: Chris H. | January 12, 2009 10:31 PM

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a study done in the UK which, according to well-placed fiction writers, appears to have cameras almost everywhere and they've been there for enough years to have affected behavior if they do so.

Posted by: Free Lunch | January 13, 2009 12:02 PM

Despite its inefficiencies, I don't think the San Francisco municipal surveillance system is a disaster by any means. Given ample funding, the city actually has the opportunity to operate one of the only successful municipal surveillance systems out there. Granted, a few major functionalities must be put in place for this to happen, but it is a project that is worth the time and effort.

I wrote a bit more about adjustments necessary to make the surveillance grid a working investment on my blog. Check it out here: www.inhardfocus.com

Posted by: Steve Russell | January 14, 2009 1:30 AM

Chris, I couldn't find your e-mail so I'm posting this here.

I found a web site that covers privacy and has an article relevant to this.

Please see:

http://www.privacylives.com/aclu-unveils-web-site-tracking-video-surveillance-in-the-us-youarebeingwatchedus/2009/01/13/

http://www.privacylives.com/

Posted by: Scott M. | January 14, 2009 10:44 PM