“Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you”
“I think I was thinking of Big Brother
surveillance and control”.
(The Police – Every breath you take)
(Interview with sting, the Independent – www.sting.com)
> Research questions
Are visitors of nightlife districts aware of CCTV surveillance
and what do they successively know ‘about’ CCTV, in
relation to perceived safety.
> To what respect are nightlife district visitors aware of
CCTV surveillance?
> How does CCTV surveillance work according to these
visitors?
> Relevance
Are visitors of nightlife districts aware of CCTV surveillance
and what do they successively know ‘about’ CCTV, in
relation to perceived safety.
> nighttime as a time of risk and transgressions – yet
under examined.
> CCTV installed to:
> prevent / reduce crime.
> increasing experiences of safety
> catching those responsible for crime
> Content
> Available literature
> The research experiment
> Results
> Conclusion
> CCTV ‘awareness’
A considerable share op the public ‘does not know’
(Honess and Charman (1992), Eijk et al. (2006), Ditton (2000), Sprigs et al. (2005))
Awareness is measured in different ways
> differing situations
> ‘what’ is measured?
> reduced to a cognitive quality
> Perceived workings of CCTV
CCTV generally accepted and strongly associated with
safety and security
(Koskela (2003), Klauser (2007), Zurawski and Czerwinski (2008), Honess and Charman (1992)).
(Why) do cameras make safe?
> little research on how people think CCTV works
> ambiguities found in interviews (Sætnan et al. 2004)
> The experiment
Directly confronting respondents with CCTV within the
nightlife district >>>
Why?
> open and flexible
> less abstraction from situatedness of experience and
immersion into the respondents world.
> reactions rather than reflections
> Awareness
“Are you aware of the fact that you are being filmed?”
> awareness as a multi-dimensional concept
> understood differently among our respondents
“Eh yes, but not consciously. It is something that I know,
but not conscious of at this very moment”
> awareness understood in terms of relevance
> Awareness as continuum
Knowing of CCTV understood in different regions:
“Are you aware of the fact that you are being filmed?”
> non-aware: “I do not have a clue”
> assuming: “I assume so, but do not know where”
> background: “I know cameras are around, but not exactly
where”
> individuation: “Yes, those white domes, look!”
> Geographical scale and specificity
REGION
Geographical scale
Specificity
non-aware
-
none
assuming
- ‘large cities in general’
- ‘other cities’
- ‘the research city at large’
- ‘particular locations in city of
research’
Concept
background
- ‘the actual square and
immediate surroundings’
individuation
- ‘the actual camera(s)’
Material Artifact.
> How CCTV works
The capacity of CCTV to offer safety strongly dependant
on:
> time-frame in which it acts
> human-touch
> ‘incidentality’ in incidents
“If I would be stabbed at this moment, that camera would
be there for nothing, you know”
> Conclusions
> CCTV awareness as complex
under- / overestimation of awareness
> discrepancy between reasons for installing CCTV and
how CCTV is understood by our respondents
> clear limitations to increase safety through CCTV
> Conclusions and relevance of findings
> shift from trying to ensure safety to offering
reassurance
> promoting CCTV as a hybrid instrument
> experienced as ‘most safe’
> bring technocratization with caution, especially
as a replacement for human action.
> End
Thank you for your attention.
Questions?
> Geographical scale and specificity
non-aware
assuming
background
individuation
Utrecht male
N=9
21.6%
N=5
20%
N=6
29.8%
N=6
35%
Utrecht
female
N = 10
24%
N=7
28%
N=6
29.8%
N=3
17.5%
Rotterdam
male (std)
N = 6.5
15.6%
N = 9.8
39%
N = 4.9
24.2%
N = 4.9
28.5%
Rotterdam
female (std)
N= 16.3
38.9%
N = 3.3
13%
N = 3.3
16.2%
N = 3.3
19%