Introduction Public security cameras, commonly referred to as CCTV (Close-Circuit Television), have become a standard attribute of modern life and are widely used by authorities, business organizations, and even private individuals. According to Norris and McCahill, by 2006, an estimated number of cameras in the United Kingdom had reached 4,2 million, or 1 per every 14 citizens (as cited in Piza, 2016, p. 1). Some people are wary of CCTV and consider it an intrusion into their privacy, while others advocate its usefulness for public security and crime prevention. In this way, CCTV can be seen as a double-edged sword, an instrument, which provides increased safety at the possible cost of some degree of personal freedom. However, the cameras are nothing but pieces of electronic equipment, operated and maintained by humans, so they can neither pose a threat to privacy nor prevent crime on their own. In that regard, CCTV does not curb crime entirely, but it can act as a deterrent to certain criminal activities if adequately deployed and used. CCTV Efficiency Against Crime Available studies showed varying degrees of CCTV efficiency in deterring and solving different types of crime. The first case took place in Medellin, Columbia, where local authorities installed extra 587 security cameras at crime hot spots (Gomez-Cardona et al., 2017). Studies of criminal cases in these hot spots had shown a 23,5% decrease in reported crime and a 31,5% decrease in arrests following the installation of the CCTV system. This result was achieved even with lowered monitoring capacity caused by the increase of camera per operator number from 32 to 69 (Gomez-Cardona et al., 2017). CCTV proved to be an especially efficient solution for lowering the number of property-related crimes. The reason for that might be a deterring effect of the cameras since possible offenders found that the risk of getting spotted and arrested is not worth the potential benefits from the crime. Overall, in the case of Medellin, public surveillance cameras proved to be a worthwhile investment for public safety since property crime rates dropped after the installation. Additional operators can further improve the situation by increasing the network’s monitoring capacity. The second example of CCTV crime deterring effect comes from Newark, the largest city in New Jersey, with 28% of the population living below the poverty level in 2015, according to U.S. Census Bureau (as cited in Piza, 2016, p. 4). After studying the data from CCTV cameras, Piza (2016) concluded that security cameras were efficient in deterring auto thefts, lowering their number by 21% after the installation. However, their impact on violent crimes and thefts from auto prevention appeared to be statistically insignificant. The reduction of auto thefts can be reasonably explained by CCTV’s ability to record the footage and capture the license plate of the stolen vehicle, making it easier for the police to locate it. Nevertheless, a lack of positive impact on violent crimes rate reveals that CCTV systems cannot provide the necessary deterring effect in some cases. Inconspicuous, audacious, or fast offenders often ignore the presence of camera