Home » Physical Security » Video Surveillance

Should Surveillance Cameras Detect Criminals, or Deter Crime

In the real world (with graffiti) and online (with spam), arrest and conviction don't always equal effective security

By Scott Berinato

Page 3

Legalization is a valid, though controversial, deterrence technique. Some states have tried setting up legally taggable zones and have experienced varying degrees of success.

There are any number of ways to deter vandalism, and they all entail significant costs—not only for cleanup but also for the strategic planning and precleaning. Up front, it would cost more than a network of hidden cameras. Still, deterrence eliminates costs that hidden cameras can’t. (Remember that cameras carry operational costs, including maintenance and deployment. In fact, the vendor suggests moving them every few days to avoid weather or detection that leads to damage or destruction.) But cleanup costs exist either way. A deterrence approach has the potential to reduce future costs in a way that detection does not.

Spam’s the Same

It’s interesting to note that the SWAT approach already exists, loosely, in the world of spam and malware. Teams of researchers share intelligence and are constantly tracking down new spam techniques and distribution servers, trying to get them shut off and taken down as soon as possible. But the effectiveness of these SWAT teams is best characterized as uneven. Unfortunately, online there are infinitely more “surfaces” to tag and it costs far less to do it. Other forms of deterrence—caps on mail volume, virtual postage, time-controlled release of mass mailings—have been discussed, but few have been implemented.

If deterrence is a more efficient strategy to pursue, why is detection so popular? We are deploying more cameras than ever (visible cameras do provide some deterrence value; how much is hard to measure and their primary purpose, experts say, is still detection and forensics). Online, detection technologies like IDS, antivirus and antispam filters dominate security investments, while deterrence techniques lag.

Unfortunately, deterrence methods are more complicated to understand and execute than detection. What’s easier: pointing hidden cameras at walls and waiting for text messages, or evaluating spaces by risk level and applying the right mix of techniques to stop and clean up graffiti?

Also, deterrence, it can be argued, is less psychologically satisfying than detection. Especially in the current security climate, the punitive instinct seems somehow more pleasing. We’re human. We like crime and punishment. We can’t really relate to prevention and rehabilitation.

Which explains why graffiti and spam are so out of control in the first place. Maybe it’s time to spend less pursuing the criminal and more pursuing the crime.

Send feedback to Executive Editor Scott Berinato .