I would like to thanks my group mates who helped me to survey, and also to BSE- Math 1 who answer our questionnaire in our survey. Without the help of my friends I would not finish this research paper. I also I would like to thank CAS for the information that they give about how to make this research paper.
CCTV Camera or Close Circuit Cameras are video cameras used for the purposed of observing an area.
They are often connected to a recording device, IP network, and/or watched by a security personnel/law enforcement officer. Video Surveillance Systems consist of cameras placed in areas where they can monitor activity as it takes place. This cameras may include features like pan, tilt, and zoom; may be placed in outdoor or indoor locations; and may include infrared recording options. Most cameras are used with recording systems, either VCRs or digital recorders. Using a digital recorder is the preferred option for easy storage, easy recall, and easy viewing over different monitors.
The first Video Surveillance System was installed by Siemens AG at Test Stand VII in Peenemunde, Germany in 1942, for observing the launch of V-2 rockets. The noted German engineer Walter Bruch was responsible for the design and installation of the system. Outside government special facilities, Video Surveillance was developed initially as a means of increasing security in banks.
Experiments in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s led to several larger trial programs later that decade.
Monitoring is the regular observation and recording of activities mtaking place in a project or programmed. It is a process of routinely gathering information on all aspects of the project, supervising activities in progress to ensure they are on-course and on-schedule in meeting the objectives and performance targets. To monitor is to check on how project activities are progressing. It is observation; ─ systematic and purposeful observation. Monitoring also involves giving feedback about the progress of the project to the donors, implementers and beneficiaries of the project. Reporting enables the gathered information to be used in making decisions for improving project performance. To observe, supervise, or keep under review; to measure or test at intervals, especially for the purpose of regulation or control, or to check or regulate the technical quality of something. On the other hand, Surveillance is a process of close monitoring of behavior. On going close observation and collection of data or evidence, for a specified purpose or confined to a narrow sector. In comparison, environmental scanning is broad and includes all associated external factors.
“Sur-Veillance” is French for to “watch from above”. Note the all seeing “eye-in-the-sky” in this London Transport poster. Although the word surveillance literally means (in French) “to watch from above” (i.e. a Gods-eye view looking down from on-high) the term is often used for all forms of observation, not just visual observation. However, the all-seeing eye-in-the-sky is still an icon of surveillance in general. It is commonly used to describe observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment or other technological means. Surveillance is the art of watching over the activities of persons or groups from a position of higher authority. Surveillance may be covert (without their knowledge) or overt (perhaps with frequent reminders such as “we are watching over you”).Surveillance has been an intrinsic part of human history. Sun Tzus.
The Art of War ,written 2,500 years ago, discusses how spies should be used against a persons enemies. But modern electronic and computer technology have given surveillance a whole new means of operation. Surveillance can be automated using computers, and people leave extensive records that describe their activities. Counter surveillance is the practice of avoiding surveillance or making it difficult .Before computer networks, counter surveillance involved avoiding agents and communicating secretly. With recent development of the Internet and computer data bases counter surveillance has grown. Now counter surveillance involves everything from knowing how to delete a file on a computer to avoiding becoming the target of direct advertising agencies.
Inverse surveillance is the practice of reversalism on surveillance, e.g. citizens photographing police, shoppers photographing shopkeepers, and passengers photographing cab drivers who usually have surveillance cameras in their cabs. A well-known example is George Halidays recording of the Rodney King beating. Inverse surveillance attempts to subvert the panoptic gaze of surveillance, and often attempts to subvert the secrecy of surveillance through making the inverse surveillance recordings widely available (in contrast to the usually secret surveillance tapes).
CCTV was first utilized by the United States Military in the 1940s. Closed circuit cameras were set up during the testing of the V2 missile in order to safely monitor the tests. By using CCTV, officials were able to monitor the testing at close range without danger, watching out for defects and other problems that might have otherwise gone undetected. In the 1960s, officials in the UK began installing CCTV systems in public places to monitor crowds during rallies and appearances of public figures. Installation of cameras became more popular, both in public spaces and retail stores, as the technology developed. Today in Britain, CCTV cameras monitor roads, sidewalks and squares in city centers, public rail stations and buses, as well as in retail shops and other businesses. In 1996, government spending on CCTV technology accounted for three quarters of the crime prevention budget in the UK. In the United States, the first CCTV system set up in a public building was in1969 in the New York City Municipal building. This practice quickly spread to other cities and was soon widely implemented. Unlike the UK, CCTV in public spaces in the United States is rarely used.
However, in the 1970s and 80s, CCTV use became more common in establishments prone to security threats, like banks, convenience stores, and gas stations. Security cameras were installed in the World Trade Center as a preventative after the terrorist attack in 1993. By the mid-90s, ATMs across the country were commonly equipped with CCTV cameras, and many retail stores used CCTV to prevent theft. Personal use of CCTV technology has become more widespread as the technology has become much easier to acquire. Many utilize CCTV systems in their own homes to catch cheating spouses, or to monitor the care of their children in “Nanny cams.” Student behavior is a problem that cannot be regarded as trivial. The problem of students bringing weapons to school is an issue that will not go away by itself. School children are harming each other with regularity. The problems are particularly acute and are complicated by their connection to the prevalence of poverty, crime, and despair. Installing video surveillance system will help students focus on their studies and not make them worry about outside violence.
These installations represent a huge amount of video to transmit, view and archive, making it impossible for a human monitor to analyze all of these video recordings in order to detect suspicious behavior or events. This is especially true since security control centre personnel are also required to manage other tasks, such as access control, issuance of badges/keys/permits, handling emergency calls, following up on fire alarms, radio communications control, etc. Over the past decade, the security of individuals and property, and the security of information have become major global issues. Faced with problems such as the fight against terrorism, enhanced national security and the rapid development of cyber crime, our societies are increasingly investing in protection. This sector therefore offers great opportunities for businesses, both with respect to technological development and services. Information and communications technologies in particular provide new and sophisticated solutions for physical and IT security. Among the solutions proposed, video surveillance is one of the oldest and most widespread security technologies.
Although still mostly analogical, it is undergoing a digital revolution with the on going transition to videos on IP networks. Sometimes integrating hundreds of cameras, these new systems create a huge amount of video information that cannot be processed only by security agent screen surveillance. To resolve this issue, intelligent video surveillance, by video analytic, can process the information by software analysis in order to keep only the data relevant to security. Video Surveillance should be place at dedicated viewing areas such as entrances, hallways, stairwells or even classroom environments, so that the best possible view can be achieved in relation to what the cameras primary focus should be.
Schools can feature multiple entrances or exits and may span multiple buildings. It can soon become hard to keep track of where potential security risks may occur at any given time. It is important to note that all video surveillance will remain in a fixed position thus providing a dedicated view of what is most important. It can be repositioned which may result in the camera looking in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Video Surveillance cameras should only be used in school campus environments as a secondary means of security. A school campus may include a single building at one location up to hundreds of buildings spanning multiple locations. One of the many benefits of video surveillance technology is the ability for centralized management. No longer is surveillance limited to a building by building configuration.
Also avoided is the cost of trying to bring all cameras video feeds to a centralized location. Video Quality and Video Frame Rates Schools can become very busy places rather quickly. It is important that video quality be at a level high enough so that identification of persons can be made easily. Cameras need both high video quality and a reasonable video frame rate for this to occur. This was once difficult due to cost and band width limitations. With video surveillance applications over school campuses it is important to focus on areas that are of key importance. These are the key security risk areas that should be monitored at all times without changing camera position. It is also important that video surveillance cameras used in these areas are of high quality so that proper identification can be made easily. With the added benefits of video surveillance including centralized management capabilities and high resolution capable cameras, a safe and secure environment can be created where students and faculty can focus on education without the worry of feeling unsafe or unprotected. Statement of the Problem
This study aims to evaluate how CCTV helps to secure the school. Specifically, it sought answer the following questions:
I have valued my privacy concept highly in this investigation, as stated above; but it also served as the substructure in the theoretical framework. The analysis of issues related to privacy has been rather concrete while the issues regarding surveillance and simulation logic have served as the more abstract superstructure, constituting the privacy discussion.
The theory has also contributed greatly to bind the discussion together and hopefully making it 73 more accessible for the reader. Although my investigation contained no material regarding concrete situations the theories of surveillance and simulation have helped to assess potentialities within the assemblage, which are relevant to privacy issues. Simulation is rather abstract in nature, and the danger is to understand everything as simulation of different kinds. The attempt to remedy this potential weakness of the theory was to draw a line. The mere processing of information was not simulative in character, as Bogard suggests. I have tried to discuss simulation in a restrictive manner, because of issues of usefulness in the analysis and thus of validity; and I think that simulation and surveillance have functioned well together as tools, because they have represented two sides- reaction and pre-emption. This has made the task of analysis easier and has hopefully served as a means to improve the narrative in the eyes of the reader. In sum, the theoretical framework has been successful, and as such it may also possess qualities that can be used by future analysts.
This study focused on the security system of the individuals in schools by having a defense security system using video surveillance. This study, intended for a non-expert audience, discusses the in sand outs of this technology and tries to characterize the market it represents, not for different places, but more specifically in schools. It contains information on video surveillance technology, its application, and leading edge video analytic techniques applicable to it, its needs, the developments and trends in this field, the issues it raises, and the supply and demand it generates. Furthermore it only attempted to identify the needs of the group concerned, explanations or reasons for these needs were not concerns of this study.
This analysis/ research will help the students to feel safe inside the school; they can concentrate/focus on their studies without bothering on what could possibly happen to them while they are in the school vicinity. With the help of this study the security of the students inside the campus will be intensively monitored by the use of the security system installed within the school campus. Students may be less inclined to cause trouble because of the solid documentation that the video recordings provide. School Administrators / Universities When school campuses provide a video surveillance system for their security, it will become a peaceful, conducive and friendly school environment. It will maintain the peace of mind of the School administrators or staff inside the school campus. School will easily secure the safety of the students enrolled. Another thing is video surveillance security system will help the school officials to find the performance evaluation of their employee.
This system will also use to lessen or decrease the property damages such as vandalism and theft; far too often the administration can only react to vandalism with time-consuming, seldom successful and often fruitless attempts to identify the perpetrators. This study serves as a major part of the course requirement as it has developed their skills in terms of self-esteem, time management, practicality, strategic planning and patience. Hence, they are able to obtain the necessary information on time and reporting it in the most presentable manner they can. This study can be effective tool for reference to know how to make the schools safer.
To understand and clarify the terms used in the study, the following are hereby defined:
Video Surveillance – is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a surreptitious manner. It most usually refers to observation of individuals or groups by government organizations.
Security System – a system that enforces boundaries between computer networks. It is an electrical devise that sets off an alarm when someone tries to break in.
IP Network – is a computer network made of devices that support the Internet Protocol.
Monitor – a device that displays images or symbols generated by computers.
Law Enforcement Officer – is any public-sector employee or agent whose duties involve the enforcement of laws.
Vandalism – is the behavior attributed originally to the Vandals, by the Romans, in respect of culture: ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable. Such action includes defacement, graffiti and criminal damage.
Theft – is the illegal taking of another person’s property without that persons freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion.
Digital Video Recorder – is a device that records video in a digital format to a disk drive, USB flash drive, SD memory card or other mass storage device.
The term includes set-top boxes with recording facility, portable media players (PMP) with recording facility, recorders (PMR as camcorders that record onto memory cards) and software for personal computers which enables video capture and playback to and from disk. Archived – is a collection of historical records, as well as the place they are located. Archives contain primary source documents that have accumulated over the course of an individual or organizations lifetime.
Algorithm – is an effective method for solving a problem expressed as a finite sequence of instructions.
Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and many other fields.
Thermal Scanner – a thermal scanner takes a measurement of their flection of electromagnetic energy emitted in the infrared spectrum. It has the ability to sense differences in temperatures of known objects.
X-ray – is a form of electromagnetic radiation. It can penetrate solid objects and their largest use is to take images of the inside of objects in diagnostic radiography and Monitoring – the act of observing something (and sometimes keeping a record of it).
Camera – equipment for taking photographs.
Surveillance Camera – “Surveillance” comes from a French word that means “to watch over;” camera surveillance uses photography to watch over people in public spaces.
CCTV – Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place.
Many European countries now employ public video surveillance as a primary tool to monitor population movements and to prevent terrorism. The United Kingdom (UK) in particular relies extensively on video surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism. According to some researchers, the camera surveillance systems in the UK are discouraging and thus preventing crime. Public video surveillance in the UK began very unassumingly in1986, on a single square mile industrial estate outside the English town of Kings Lynn. Three CCTV video surveillance cameras were used and their impact was immediate. In the years before the cameras were installed, there had been 58 crimes (mostly vandalism) recorded on the estate. In the two years following the installation, there were no crimes reported. Subsequently, cities and towns across Great Britain began using this crime prevention measure.
By 1994, over 300 jurisdictions in the country had installed some form of public video surveillance. In 1995, the national government made available up to $3.1 million in matching grants available to cities and towns to establish CCTV video surveillance programs. According to the police superintendent of a large metropolitan area, “public video surveillance has been very helpful in making arrests, and perhaps more important, helping to allocate resources to where they’re most necessary.” Although most municipal systems have been operational since 1990, there is little longitudinal data indicating how effective CCTV surveillance systems actually have been in reducing crime rates. Recent British government reports cite CCTV surveillance as a major reason for declining crime rates: in the small town of Berwick burglaries fell by 69 percent; in Northampton overall crime decreased by57 percent; and in Glasgow, Scotland crime decreased by 68 percent.25 What Criminologists and Others Studying Cameras Have Found Noam Biale, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Technology and Liberty Program .An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time.
There is extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried out over many years—and that research strongly indicates that video surveillance has no statistically significant effect on crime rates. The principle studies on video surveillance have been conducted in the UK, where surveillance cameras are pervasive. Those studies, which have been commissioned by the British Home Office, have found varying results when they look at individual camera sites in isolation. However, the best studies combine results from multiple camera sites in a meta-analysis, which eliminates anomalies. The two main meta-analyses conducted for the British Home Office show that video surveillance has no impact on crime whatsoever. Video surveillance systems are more disparate and at various levels of operability in the United States. As such, fewer independent studies of their efficacy exist. However, preliminary studies of surveillance cameras in California show similar results to studies conducted in the UK: Cameras having little to no effect on crime reduction.
This White Paper is based on a literature review of major studies of video surveillance from 2000 to 2008. It examines the key meta-analyses from the UK, discusses the major difficulties in determining the impact of video surveillance on crime, and describes preliminary studies conducted in the US. The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be part of the debate around surveillance cameras. An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried out over many years—and that research strongly indicates the following:
Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime.
Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime. This White Paper is based upon a literature review of independent studies on the effect of video surveillance on crime rates from 2000 to2008, particularly meta-analyses that aggregate data from several studies. It surveys what these meta-analyses have found, the methodological difficulties of studying video surveillance systems in isolation, and preliminary results from studies in the US. The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be part of the debate around surveillance cameras.
Measuring the success of public video surveillance systems is complex, because there are always innumerable factors that can explain a rise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an increase or decrease in reported crime in an area under surveillance does not take into account general trends in crime and crime reporting, additional police in the areas under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, the possible displacement of crime to other areas not under surveillance. Several factors in particular make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of surveillance camera. Displacement complicates attempts to measure the impact of surveillance cameras on crime rates, because it means that the control area cannot be too close in proximity to the cameras.
For example, in looking at a downtown district and comparing the number of muggings on particular blocks, one might reasonably assume that if the rate of muggings increase near an area that is being monitored by cameras, and decrease in the area being directly monitored, then the cameras have been effective in reducing muggings. However, it could also be reasonably assumed that the placement of the cameras on a particular block in fact pushed the muggings into surrounding areas, and did not reduce crime overall. This is really a problem of interpretation, not data, and as a result, displacement can be extraordinarily difficult to show.
Confounding variables. It can be inaccurate to extrapolate success from specific locations to general areas.
For example, enclosed places such as parking lots tend to produce better outcomes than outdoor areas. In addition, other factors such as increased police presence and better lighting in areas under surveillance make it difficult to conclude which intervention is most effective. It is unclear in many studies that appear to show success whether surveillance cameras had a positive impact in combination with improved lighting, or whether the improved lighting might accomplish the positive outcome on its own. Studies vary on the degree to which they take confounding factors into account.
Because of these problems, individual video surveillance studies may not be reliable on their own. In evaluating the merits of video surveillance it is important to look at the overall trend of multiple studies and place particular reliance on studies with rigorous methodology. For this reason, the UK Home Office has adopted the meta-analysis as the best statistical tool for studying the efficacy of surveillance cameras.
The efficacy of public video surveillance as a crime-fighting tool has been analyzed in a wide range of studies over the last decade. The majority of research has been conducted in the United Kingdom, which more than any other country has embraced the widespread use of cameras. The UK’s network of public surveillance cameras is the largest in the world (although China is quickly outpacing it). The number of surveillance cameras in England and Wales increased from 100 in 1990to 40,000 in 2002, and now stands above 4.2 million, or one for every14 persons. The center of London is surrounded by a “ring of steel,” a networked video surveillance system that is intended to allow law enforcement to track individuals moving through the city, observe patterns of behavior and respond immediately to threats The British Home Office, the agency in charge of security, spent78% of its criminal justice budget in the 1990’s on surveillancecameras,4 and is estimated to have spent over £500 million(approximately a $1 billion) in between 1995 and 2005.5 The Home Office has commissioned several key studies on the effectiveness of these systems around the UK using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis combines the results of multiple studies that all have similar hypotheses and methodological criteria. This is important because it weeds out anomalies. For example, one installation of a video surveillance system might coincide with a sharp drop in crime, but we cannot know whether it caused the drop without comparing it to other scenarios (further explanation of the difficulty of measuring success from isolated studies is below).
A meta-analysis can provide a clearer sense of the impact of surveillance cameras by taking a variety of studies and averaging their results. The individual studies show moderate successes in some sites, usually in parking lots, and for certain types of crimes, usually vehicle crimes. However, the majority of studies show no effect on overall crime, and when combined in a meta-analysis, CCTV is shown to have no statistically significant impact on crime rates at all. The following is a summary of the Home Office studies. Home Office Study, 2002 In the first Home Office study in August 2002, Brandon C. We ls hand David P. Farrington6 surveyed 22 studies of CCTV (both in the UK and the USA) for a meta-analysis, and found that, taken together, the cameras had no significant impact on crime. Welsh and Farrington began with 46 studies, but whittled the number down to 18 based on the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis.7 Of the 18 studies, half showed some reduction in crime in the area under surveillance, about a quarter showed an increase in crime, and the remaining studies showed a null effect. Welsh and Farrington then created a meta-analysis for the included studies, by determining an odds-ratio for each study and then combining these ratios. An odds-ratio is a numerical expression of the net effect of an intervention, calculated by comparing results in the experimental area with the control.
An odds-ratio of 1 shows that there is no difference in crime rates between the experimental (surveillance) area and the control. An odds-ratio greater than1 shows that the areas with cameras are experiencing less crime than the control areas. An odds-ratio of less than 1 show that the areas with cameras are experiencing more crime than the control. When Welsh and Farrington combined odd-ratios for all 18 studies included in the meta-analysis, they found that the average was just over1, showing a very small impact on crime, and when measured against the standard deviation, this impact was shown to be statistically in significant. The areas with cameras did not perform better than the areas without. It is worth noting that the two areas included in which cameras were the only intervention used (no added police presence, increased lighting, etc.) showed no effect on crime in one case,8 and an increase in crime in the other.9 Five of the eleven studies that showed reductions in crime looked at camera systems located in enclosed parking lots. These studies showed an overall odds-ratio of 1.7, but included other interventions, such as improved lighting, fencing, notices about CCTV, and increased security personnel.
This suggests that cameras can be effective when used in specific environments and combined with other preventative measures. Home Office Study, 2005 Criminologists Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs published acomprehensive analysis of fourteen individual sites in the UK for the Home Office in 2005,10 which found, again through the use of meta-analysis, that the cameras had “no overall effect” on crime rates. Gill and Spriggs concluded that only one of 13 sites showed a statistically significant reduction in crime (one site was excluded for failing to meet the crime statistics recording criteria). This site showed a reduction far larger than any others—an odds-ratio of 3.34, indicating a reduction in crime of over 300%, compared with the second-largest odds-ratio of 1.38, or just under 40%—and was also the most expensive site, at a cost of over £3 million (about $6 million) for the camera system. This area also experienced several confounding factors including increased fencing and improvements to security, though these were implemented once the video surveillance system was fully installed and thus may not have had a distorting impact on the outcome. Although Gill and Spriggs analysis found “that CCTV schemes produced no overall effect on all relevant crime viewed collectively,” the study did show overall better outcomes for vehicle crimes in seven of the sites.
Violent crimes were different. In the four urban city centers included in the study, violence against persons increased in three sites. Gill and Spriggs hypothesize that these crimes may be impulsive and more often influenced by alcohol.12 They also acknowledge that changes to parking regulations in at least one site may have contributed to the reduction in vehicle crime, by simply reducing the number of vehicles on the street.13 In addition, burglary, a property crime that did show reductions in one site, showed the highest rate of displacement in an area adjacent to the target area.14 Gill and Spriggs additionally found that fear of being victimized by crime did not change significantly from before the cameras were installed and after, though 69-96% of individuals surveyed in the 14 sites responded favorably to plans to install camera systems.
Fewer studies of video surveillance have been conducted in the United States, where cameras have been erected in a piecemeal manner, and have not undergone an extensive process of networking (though Chicago15 and New York16 are beginning this process). Studies are, at this point, insufficient to conduct meta-analyses based solely on studies in the US. However, Welsh and Farrington’s 2002 meta-analysis compared UK and US sites, and the two revisited this comparison in a2004 follow-up. The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysis generally showed worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing an undesirable or null effect on crime. Welsh and Farrington point out a few key differences between the UK and US systems that might explain this. One possibility is a difference in reporting time, with the UK studies generally taking longer to report findings. However, as Welsh and Farrington report, what is likely an even more important factor, is that the surveillance sites in the US lack the confounding elements of the British sites. While nine of the 14 UK sites used several different interventions simultaneously, such as improved lighting and increased foot patrols, none of the US schemes used any intervention besides cameras.
Thus, these studies provide a more unadulterated look at the effect of surveillance cameras on crime rates than their UK counter parts and show that cameras on their own have virtually no impact on crime.18 The following are two initial independent studies of small-scale systems, both in California,19 that offer a preliminary view of the impact of video surveillance on crime in US cities. UC Berkeley Preliminary Study The city of San Francisco’s 68 cameras appear to have had a small impact on property crimes, but no impact on violent crimes. Jennifer King and colleagues at Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and the Samuelson Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, are currently in the process of studying the impact of San Francisco small video surveillance system. In March 2008, they published preliminary findings.20 Looking at aggregate statistics on serious violent crime and serious property crimes before and after installation of cameras in high-crime neighborhoods, Kings group found a 22% decline in property crime occurring within 100feet of the cameras, but no statistically significant changes between 100and 500 feet from the cameras.
This would seem to suggest that the cameras are, in fact, working to reduce property crimes. However, without the benefit of aggregated multiple studies in a meta-analysis, we cannot know whether this reduction is a fluke or not. Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statistically significant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot range around the cameras. When violent crimes were disaggregated, a decline in homicide was observed within 250 feet of the cameras, however this reduction was offset completely by an equal increase in homicides between 250 and 500 feet from the cameras, suggesting displacement. The study also did preliminary analysis of crime statistics500-1000 feet away from the cameras, and thus, based on information available from the San Francisco Police Department, out of the range of surveillance, and found an increase in property crime between 500 to 750feet from the cameras.
This might suggest displacement from the areas directly monitored by the cameras, though an off setting decline in property crimes in the area 750 to 1,000 feet away makes a determination of displacement inconclusive. Notably when the preliminary findings of the UC Berkeley study were reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who heads the boards public safety committee, responded to the apparent null effect on violent crime by asserting that the cameras provided “psychological relief” to citizens, and were thus justified.21 The city has so far spent $900,000 on the 68 cameras currently up and has budgeted an additional $200,000 for25 more cameras intended to target violent gang activity.22USC Study Preliminary studies of camera systems in Los Angeles show no impact on crime. Students at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development released a report to the California Research Bureau in May 2008 on the effects of video surveillance on crime in two areas of Los Angeles.23 The group looked at five out of 14 cameras along a high-traffic section of Hollywood Blvd. and six cameras at the Jordan Downs Public Housing Project in Watts.
The study notes that, unlike San Franciscos public video surveillance system, cameras in Los Angeles have not been analyzed by the city or some other official body to determine their efficacy. This may be because while San Francisco has incurred substantial costs for installation and upkeep of the cameras, many of LAs cameras, including the clusters that the USC group examined, were installed through private donations (on Hollywood Blvd, for example, the cameras were donated to the city by the film industry) or federal grants through the US Department of Homeland Securitys Grant Program. Another important distinction between the camera systems in Los Angeles and those in San Francisco is active monitoring of Las cameras “in real time,” vs. a decision by the San Francisco City Councilto allow only passive monitoring of the cameras for the purposes of safeguarding citizens privacy. Looking at the LAPDs COMPSTAT figures to determine pre and post installation crime rates, as well as arrest records, the study found no significant impact on crime in either area. Violent crime went down in both areas, but that reduction was offset by an overall crime reduction in surrounding control areas (though in the case of the Jordan Downs Housing Project, the group hypothesized that the cameras may have played a role in preventing a substantial escalation of crime relative to surrounding areas, since the housing project was the site of a gang war during the period of the study). The group was not able to find statistically significant evidence of displacement in either area.
The Philippines is known as the Pearl of the Orient, with its exotic and tropical islands, rare and valuable natural resources, stunning natural wonders, warm and hospitable people, and rising national status in the world. But with all these raves, the country is not exempt from the terrors of the rest of the world. Despite its beauty, the country is also in danger of relentless terrorist threats and terrorism incidences. Communications and Information Technology industries are also booming and the workplace is getting larger and more complex as time progresses. The country is not bereft of crimes, in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The fact is that this is the harsh reality that goes hand in hand with the wonders and delight the country can offer. But the good side to this is that we are not left helpless to these looming possibilities of insecurity.
You have the choice of taking proactive stance when it comes to securing your homes, your businesses, your country, and your future. Philippine Security brings you the late stand most reliable storage and security system technologies that can take your safety and security confidence to a higher level. Only Philippine Security offers the complete set of security solutions that can meet the security needs of various types of clients – from the government, to the business sector, to academic institutions, to individual homes and to the schools and campuses. Our line-up of products and solutions include the top-of-the-line surveillance cameras, access control and alarm systems.
This study will use the descriptive method of the survey type of research which describe and interpret data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. It involves some type of comparison or contrast and attempts to discover relationships between existing and non manipulative variables. Moreover, Aquino describes the descriptive research as fact-finding methodology with adequate interpretation. He further claims that the descriptive method is something more and beyond just data gathering. He believes that the discussions of those data are carried up to the level of adequate interpretation. The data must be subjected to terms of ordered reasoning. Detailed discussion of the statistical analysis can be found in the online Technical Annex (Gill et al. 2005c). However, the following provides a summary of the methodology used. The approach adopted a quasi-experimental model of evaluation (see Cook and Campbell, 1976; Welsh and Farrington, 2002).
It measured changes in police recorded crime and fear of crime in the intervention area (called the target area) and a comparable control, before and after the CCTV system has been installed6 3. In so doing, it aimed to achieve Level 3 of the M a Ryland Scientific Methods Scale of quasi-experimental analysis (Sherman et al. 2002). A buffer zone was identified for the purpose of measuring displacement and diffusion of benefits. The target area was defined as the area covered by the cameras or as a geographical area by implementers as being covered by the cameras (e.g. if implementers placed cameras on the periphery of a particular estate or park with the intention of monitoring the activities of all individuals entering or leaving that estate; alternatively they would place cameras in key places on the estate in order to cover that estate’s main activities; they would be deemed to cover the estate as a whole). Control areas were selected by similarity on socio-demographic and geographical characteristics and crime problems. The buffer zone an area of one-mile radius from the edge of the target area, or up to any natural boundaries, such as railway lines, which prevented displacement. Public attitude surveys were carried out in 12 areas pre- and post-implementation (see Spriggs et al. 2005). The surveys were used to measure change in fear of crime.
Absolute changes in police-recorded relevant crime and crimes specific to individual CCTV systems were measured for periods of six, 12 and 24 months, prior to and post installation of CCTV, where the timescale of the evaluation allowed64. Relevant crimes were those types of crime, which could reasonably be influenced by the presence of CCTV, e.g. it excludes domestic violence. Temporal trends in crime were investigated by plotting a line graph showing evolution of crime from a period two years prior to CCTV implementation to two years post implementation 65. These were shown for the target area, the buffer area and the control area. Where no control area was available (see below), trends were compared with the crime trends in the Basic Command Unit. These assisted the analysis in three different ways. First, they allowed researchers to measure crime trends in the target area compared with the control area, and the Basic Command Unit data.
Second, it allowed the evaluation to assess the impact of CCTV relative to other interventions implemented in the target area prior to or alongside CCTV, and which may, individually or along with CCTV, impact upon recorded crime. Fieldworkers collected information of monthly activity on other initiatives occurring within the target area (see Calendar of Action, below). Third, they took account of independent fluctuations in crime levels. Research has shown that crime patterns can be affected by pseudo-random fluctuations (Brown, 1995); regression to the mean (Scriven1991); floor effects (Lay cock and Tilley, 1995); or seasonal effects (Short and Ditton, 1995).
Spatial analysis, using Geographical Information Systems (GIS), was carried out to measure geographical crime trends, allowing the research team to determine where, as well as whether, changes in crime have occurred. It assessed changes in crime trends in the target, as opposed to the buffer area, to measure geographical displacement or diffusion of benefits and possible deterrence effects. By comparing the crime levels falling within the coverage of each CCTV camera (i.e. where the cameras could see, technically known as view shed) and those within a 100 meter buffer area immediately surrounding the view sheds, it was also possible to measure changes in crime patterns within the target area.
This research is discripted and historical, because its described the CCTV, and the quality also the advantage of these thing in our daily live. This is also an historical because it also discuss about the history of CCTV in foreign and local literature. Respondent
The Respondent of our survey are 40 the section of bse-math 1 in college of education, of Eulogio Amang Rodrigues Institute of Science and Technology. Sampling Technique
The survey questionnaire was used as the main data-gathering instrument for this study. The questionnaire was divided into two main sections: a personal data sheet or the profile and the survey proper. The profile contains socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents such as age, gender, and the respondent’s knowledge about their opinion about importance of cctv.
The questions were structure using the Likert format. In this survey type, five choices are provided for every question or statement. The choices represent the degree of agreement each respondent has on the given question. The Likers survey was the selected questionnaire type as this enabled the respondents to answer the survey easily. In addition, this research instrument allowed the research to carry out the quantitative approach effectively with the use of statistics for data interpretation Data gathering procedure
We conduct the study about the importance of CCTV in Eulogio Amang Rodrigues Institute of Science And Technology, College of Education in Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila. The questionnaire will be scored, tallied and tabulated. The information gathered were tabulated and processed manually and with the aid of computer to determine the precise interpretation of the results. Matrix tables were made to organize, summarize, and analyze the data gathered for easy determination of its difference from each other. Data were collated, tabulated, and analyzed. The following statistical tools were used in the analysis of data: 1.Percentage
To describe the profile of the respondents, the percentage will be computed. The measure of dominant quantity was utilized to determine the most probable scenario.
P = F/N x 100
P = Percentage (%)
F = Frequency
N = Total Number of respondent
The r2. The responses to question in the given variables were scaled using the always, sometimes and never question.
To test the level of significance between the assessments of the respondent that we use always sometimes never method.
Rank consists of arranging number of decreasing or increasing order of size. The highest occurrences of behavior or the class with the greater number was given the highest rank.
CCTV Camera or Close Circuit Cameras are video cameras used for the purposed of observing an area. They are often connected to a recording device, IP network, and/or watched by a security personnel/law enforcement officer. Video Surveillance Systems consist of cameras placed in areas where they can monitor activity as it takes place. This cameras may include features like pan, tilt, and zoom; may be placed in outdoor or indoor locations; and may include infrared recording options.
The review of the literature indicated that surveillance systems initiated by local police are generally employed to reduce criminal activity, improve quality of life (by reducing threats to person and property), re-establish confidence in the economic viability of an area and promote the general economic rehabilitation of city centres. Current thinking is that CCTV should provide an integrated city centre management system whereby a whole range of services and provisions (such as public safety, traffic control, fire and other emergency management and service maintenance) are managed through one system.
CCTV may not be able to reduce crime or even deter criminals; however it may use effectively to target specific offences. There is no doubt that it is a powerful and innovative weapon in the police arsenal and it may be employed to monitor town centers and help in controlling crime and upholding the letter of the law. Due to increased terrors and crimes, the use of the video surveillance camera system is increasing. It has been operated for public interest such as prevention of crimes and fly-tipping by the police and local government, but private information such as faces or behavior patterns can be recorded in CCTV.
When the recorded video data is exposed, it may cause an invasion to privacy and crimes. This paper analyses conventional methods of privacy protection in surveillance camera systems and applied scrambling and RFID system to existing surveillance systems to prevent privacy exposure in monitoring simultaneously for both privacy protection and surveillance. The proposed system adjusts the intensities of privacy according to access levels to reduce invasion of privacy by people who are not concerned. Recommendation
CCTV should only be considered where less intrusive means of deterrence, such as increased monitoring by teachers, have shown to be ineffective or unworkable. In its consultation with the school community, the school administration should outline the less intrusive means that have been considered and the reason why they are not effective. Before implementing a video surveillance program, a school should be able to demonstrate. Video surveillance programs should only be adopted where circumstances have shown that it is necessary for the purposes of providing the safety of students and staff, or for the deterrence of destructive acts, such as vandalism. The school administration should provide justification for the use and extent of a video surveillance program on the basis of addressing specific and significant concerns about safety and/or the theft or destruction of property.
They should also conduct an assessment into the effects that the surveillance system will have on personal privacy and the ways in which such adverse effects may be mitigated. They should consult openly with parents, staff, students and the broader school community as to the necessity of the proposed video surveillance program and its acceptability to the school community. Consultation should provide take holders with an opportunity to comment on the actual location of cameras on school property, should the project proceed and they should ensure that the proposed design and operation of the video surveillance system minimizes privacy intrusion to that which is necessary to achieve appropriate goals through lawful activities.