“Every breath you take (The Police – 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 (Interview with sting, the Independent – www.sting.com) surveillance and control”. > 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’ Concept - ‘other cities’ - ‘the research city at large’ - ‘particular locations in city of research’
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 N = 5 N = 6 N = 6 21.6% 20% 29.8% 35%
Utrecht N = 10 N = 7 N = 6 N = 3 female 24% 28% 29.8% 17.5%
Rotterdam N = 6.5 N = 9.8 N = 4.9 N = 4.9 male (std) 15.6% 39% 24.2% 28.5%
Rotterdam N= 16.3 N = 3.3 N = 3.3 N = 3.3 female (std) 38.9% 13% 16.2% 19%