Video Surveillance: Information on Law Enforcement's Use of Closed-Circuit Television to Monitor Selected Federal Property in Washington, D.C.
Published: 2003-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Law enforcement use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) as a tool to fight crime and terrorism has become more prevalent over time. Civil liberties advocates have raised privacy concerns about its use. This report describes (1) the Metropolitan Police Department's and the United States Park Police's implementation of CCTV to monitor public spaces in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area such as the National Mall and (2) the management controls they established to address privacy concerns. GAO also identified experiences of selected CCTV users that provide insights to help ensure the proper CCTV use.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia's CCTV system was implemented, among other things, to facilitate crowd management during large demonstrations; however, officials indicated that the system could also be used to help combat terrorism. The system is used on an as-needed basis for such things as crowd control and when the national terrorism threat level is set to high alert (code orange). The Metropolitan Police Department obtained public comments on its implementation of CCTV. In contrast, the United States Park Police uses CCTV, among other purposes, primarily to combat terrorism and operates its CCTV system on a continuous basis. The United States Park Police has not obtained public input on its implementation of CCTV, but it is considering providing the public an opportunity to provide input. The Metropolitan Police developed regulations and the United States Park Police developed draft policies for operating their CCTV systems. Both include management controls that address the protection of privacy and the proper use of CCTV such as the need for supervision to protect against improper use and the establishment of procedures to control access to CCTV images. The experiences of CCTV users in the United Kingdom (UK) and selected U.S. cities revealed best practices for the implementation and use of CCTV. For example, UK and U.S. officials considered providing training and audits helpful to ensuring proper use of CCTV. Officials in the UK and others shared their best practices that include (1) operating CCTV systems in an open environment helps to alleviate privacy concerns; (2) having uniform standards helps to reassure the public that safeguards are in place when utilizing CCTV and provides CCTV operators guidance for proper use; and (3) establishing realistic, clear, and measurable goals helps make CCTV systems more effective and can also reassure the public about its use.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Surveillance video cameras have become a growing presence in the public  arena over the past several decades in stores, civic buildings, and even on  public streets. As part of this trend, law enforcement has increasingly used  closed-circuit television (CCTV)—which involves a linked system of  cameras able to be viewed and operated from a control room—as a tool  for fighting crime. Police departments in the United States commonly use  CCTV to, among other things, deter, detect, and investigate crime and  control crowds. Since September 11, 2001, law enforcement has also  begun to use CCTV to combat terrorism. In particular, both the  Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) and  the National Park Service’s United States Park Police within the  Department of the Interior have used CCTV systems to monitor certain  public spaces under their jurisdictions in Washington, D.C. For example,  the United States Park Police has responsibility for policing the area  around the White House, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, the  Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, and  the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial.
CCTV use in public spaces and varying methods of implementation have  raised concerns among critics of CCTV use. Specifically, civil liberties  advocates have raised issues concerning CCTV’s potential impact on  individual privacy as well as the potential for inappropriate use of CCTV  systems and the mishandling of CCTV images. In addition, these advocates  expressed concern about using the technology when its effectiveness for  law enforcement use has not been proven. Civil liberties advocates  propose that controls are needed to help ensure the protection of  individual privacy and the proper use of CCTV systems. The American Bar  Association (ABA) and other organizations have developed guidelines for  CCTV users that address some of the issues raised by civil liberties  advocates through the use of management controls. These include  developing written operating protocols, establishing supervision and  training requirements, providing for public notification, and requiring  periodic audits.
This report responds to a request from former Representative   Constance A. Morella in her capacity as Chair of the House Government  Reform Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, asking us to examine  several issues surrounding the use of CCTV to monitor public spaces. As  discussed with your office, we are sending you this report because of your  oversight responsibility for the District of Columbia. This report discusses:    How MPDC and the United States Park Police have implemented their  CCTV systems.
How MPDC’s and the United States Park Police’s management controls  respond to issues raised regarding individual privacy and the use of CCTV.    Whether the experiences of other CCTV users in the United States and the  United Kingdom (UK) offer useful insights for MPDC and the United States  Park Police regarding the issues that have been raised.
To determine how MPDC and the United States Park Police have  implemented their CCTV systems, we interviewed MPDC and United  States Park Police officials and reviewed relevant laws, regulations,  policies, and other documents. To determine how MPDC’s and the United  States Park Police’s management controls responded to issues raised  regarding the use of CCTV, we interviewed MPDC and United States Park  Police officials. We did not evaluate or test compliance with MPDC’s or  the United States Park Police’s management controls. We also interviewed  representatives from the ABA, the American Civil Liberties Union  (ACLU), the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the  International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and the Security  Industry Association (SIA) to obtain their views on the use of CCTV.
To learn about the experiences of CCTV users in other U.S. cities, we  obtained documentation and interviewed officials and representatives in  four U.S. locations—Baltimore, Maryland; Tampa, Florida; Columbia,  South Carolina; and Virginia Beach, Virginia. These locations were  selected for one or more of the following reasons: they had used CCTV for  some time, had recently initiated the use of CCTV, were located close to  D.C., or were using other technology in conjunction with CCTV. In  addition, we visited the UK—a country that has used CCTV extensively to  address crime and terrorism. We toured the control rooms and observed  the operations of CCTV systems in some U.S. cities and in all of the UK  locations visited. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of our  scope and methodology.
We performed our audit work from August 2002 to May 2003 in  Washington, D.C., and the selected locations mentioned earlier, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We  requested comments on a draft of this report from MPDC and the  Department of the Interior, and their comments have been incorporated as  appropriate.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: CCTV is a visual surveillance technology designed for monitoring a variety  of environments and activities. CCTV systems typically involve a dedicated  communications link between cameras and monitors. Digital camera and  storage technologies are rapidly replacing traditional analog systems. A  CCTV system involves a linked system of cameras able to be viewed and  operated from a control room.
CCTV systems have evolved considerably over time and tend to fall into  three different generations. The first generation consisted of wide-angle,  fixed cameras (referred to as shoe boxes) that were targeted to crime  hotspots. The second generation consisted of cameras that could be  moved using a joystick in the control center focused on specific events or  people, zooming in for closer scrutiny. The third generation uses both  types of cameras with the additional capabilities to include software such  as facial recognition or license plate recognition. Relatively new features  in CCTV technology that enhance its power and scope include night vision  cameras, computer-assisted operations, and motion detectors. A camera  that is integrated with a motion detection system would, for example,  enable alerted law enforcement staff in a control room to remotely  investigate potential security incidents such as a terrorist placing a  package in an isolated location. Most CCTV systems are actively  monitored by security or law enforcement personnel in a centralized  setting, or they can be passively taped for future viewing if needed (such  as in the event of a robbery).
The private sector began using CCTV in the early 1960s, first in banks, and  later in commercial buildings. By the 1970s, CCTV was deployed in  hospitals, all-night convenience stores, and many other commercial areas.
The private sector also began to use CCTV in retail stores to monitor for  shoplifters and in hotels to help secure the safety of their guests. CCTV  technology advanced during the 1980s with the introduction of video  recorders, and even more in the 1990s with the introduction of digital  technology. CCTV is also used in public safety-related applications across  the United States, including traffic control, special events, public  transportation, and public schools.
CCTV use by law enforcement to fight crime and terrorism is an evolving  application of the technology. According to a number of reports, CCTV can  benefit law enforcement in many ways. A survey of law enforcement  agencies conducted by the IACP found that CCTV was useful in areas such  as investigative assistance and evidence gathering. The survey identified  other law enforcement benefits from CCTV use such as reducing time in  court for officers, protecting police officers against claims of police  misconduct, and using recorded images to train officers. A report by  RAND noted that proponents of video and similar types of surveillance  claim that it prevents crime by deterrence, especially when overt  surveillance activities remind potential criminals of police presence and  observation. The same report also states that, if an area under surveillance  becomes a crime scene, the surveillance can both alert police to the need  for an operational response and/or provide evidence for subsequent  criminal investigation and prosecution. A study commissioned by the SIA  also stated that CCTV has the ability to enhance law enforcement  capabilities by enabling officers to be deployed in areas that require more  traditional police work (such as foot patrols where officers can interact  with individuals), enabling the CCTV cameras to be used for general  surveillance.
In the context of law enforcement surveillance activities, a common  conception of privacy stems from criminal cases interpreting the Fourth  Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects people  from unreasonable searches and seizures. According to the Supreme  Court, if the person under surveillance has a reasonable expectation of  privacy, the Fourth Amendment applies, and a warrant is generally  required to conduct a lawful search. Conversely, if the person under  surveillance does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth  Amendment does not apply, and no warrant is required for police  surveillance. Applying these principles, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals  upheld the use of surveillance cameras placed on a public street without a  warrant on grounds that “activity a person knowingly exposes to the  public is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, and thus, is not  constitutionally protected from observation.”
While there is generally no reasonable expectation of privacy under the  Fourth Amendment for activities visible to the public, the ACLU and EPIC  have argued that the use of surveillance systems to monitor public spaces  may nevertheless infringe upon freedom of expression under the First  Amendment. There does not appear to be any federal case law interpreting  whether police use of video surveillance devices may infringe upon First  Amendment rights. However, ACLU and EPIC believe that CCTV might  “chill” protesters from demonstrating in public spaces such as on the  National Mall and elsewhere in D.C. knowing that their images might be  captured on police recordings. There is also concern that CCTV cameras  equipped with enhanced features, such as zoom capabilities, may give  police the ability to read and record the print on political fliers being  distributed in public places and to identify individuals engaged in political  speech, which, in their view, undercuts the ability of citizens to engage in  anonymous free speech.
ACLU and EPIC officials said that they would like to see controls in place  to help guard against improper use of CCTV systems and the mishandling  of CCTV images. In addition, ACLU officials said that controls directing  the use of CCTV should contain specific provisions for protecting CCTV  images that include whether CCTV images are being recorded, under what  conditions, and how long the recordings are retained, as well as criteria  for access to CCTV images by the government or the public. An EPIC  official also said that controls should address access, storage, and  disclosure of records.
In the UK, CCTV and video surveillance have been used extensively. As of  2002, about 75 cities were using CCTV to monitor urban centers, and  approximately 95 percent of all local governments were considering its  use as a law enforcement tool. In 1990, according to the UK Home Office,  the UK had approximately three CCTV systems operated by local  governments comprised of about 100 cameras. By the end of 2002, Home  Office officials estimated that the UK had approximately 500 CCTV  systems operated by local governments comprised of about 40,000  cameras. Nonlaw enforcement staff generally operate the CCTV systems in  the locations we visited in the UK. In most cases, the systems were set up  to address street-type crimes such as robbery, car theft, harassment, and  public drunkenness. The UK CCTV systems that we observed had control  rooms that were operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and all  maintained digitally recorded images. The UK Home Office provided  funding for 684 CCTV systems as of October 2002, though not all were  operational at the time. Home Office officials said that the level of funding  per location has ranged from about $50,000 to $12 million to implement  CCTV in town centers, parking garages, and residential areas.
During the 107th Congress, a Senate bill was introduced that would have  established a commission to evaluate the use of investigative and  surveillance technologies, including surveillance cameras, to meet law  enforcement and national security needs in the manner that best preserves  individual privacy. Under the proposed legislation, the commission was  to investigate and report on standards for using, selecting, and operating  such technologies and to make recommendations for legislation or  administrative actions, as appropriate. However, the bill was not enacted.
section_title: MPDC and United States Park Police Implementation of CCTV
paragraphs: MPDC and the United States Park Police have implemented their CCTV  systems with varying purposes and guiding protocols. The purposes of  MPDC’s and the United States Park Police’s CCTV systems differ;  however, both entities have installed cameras in locations that are at high  risk for terrorist attacks. When the Department of Homeland Security’s  national threat level was increased to high alert (code orange), MPDC and  the United States Park Police utilized CCTV on a continuous basis. Both  MPDC and the United States Park Police view their CCTV systems from  secure control rooms, and each entity’s CCTV cameras have enhanced  features, such as zoom capabilities. MPDC, acting under D.C. law, has  issued regulations pursuant to D.C. statute that provide operating  protocols to govern its use of CCTV, whereas the United States Park  Police’s use of CCTV is not specifically governed by any federal law or  regulation. However, the United States Park Police is in the process of  developing a policy applicable to its use of CCTV.
subsections: section_title: MPDC Operates CCTV on a Limited Basis
paragraphs: MPDC’s CCTV system is generally intended to help manage public  resources (such as police officers) during major public events and  demonstrations and to coordinate traffic control on an as-needed basis. In  addition to these purposes, the system may be utilized during exigent  circumstances (e.g., periods of heightened alert for terrorism) as  designated by the police chief. While the purpose of MPDC’s CCTV system  is to manage public resources and to control traffic, it could be used for  monitoring crime as well. For example, although CCTV can be used to  deploy police resources in order to maintain crowd control, the implied  reasoning for deploying officers to maintain control would be to deter or  prevent criminal activity, such as looting and rioting.
MPDC has used CCTV cameras for events such as the Fourth of July  celebration in 2002 and antiwar demonstrations in 2003. According to a  senior MPDC official, the CCTV cameras are not operational on a 24-hour  basis; they are activated only during certain events and are turned off  when the event ends. For example, the Chief of Police said that political  demonstrations resulted in MPDC activating and deactivating the cameras  only to reactivate them again when the Department of Homeland Security  increased the national threat level to high alert (code orange).
MPDC has increased its CCTV system operations over time and has the  capability to expand its operations by accessing other CCTV systems. A  senior MPDC official said that MPDC’s CCTV system had been increased  from two cameras in April 2000, to 14 cameras with pan, tilt, and zoom  capabilities. The cameras are monitored from a control room called the  Joint Operations Command Center located within MPDC’s headquarters.  According to the MPDC Chief of Police, the locations of the cameras  throughout D.C. were chosen because they were thought to be locations  that were at the highest risk for terrorism. MPDC can obtain real-time  video images from other D.C. agencies, including the District of Columbia  Public Schools. These agencies must first give MPDC access to their  camera images. In addition, MPDC can access real-time video images from  certain private entities in the D.C. metropolitan area, although a D.C.  official said that MPDC has not been doing so. MPDC’s CCTV cameras  were purchased and maintained with city funds.
section_title: MPDC Has Regulations That Govern Its Use of CCTV
paragraphs: MPDC drafted regulations and an implementing general order on the use  of CCTV in June 2002. These documents were made available to the ABA  for approval on their contents to help ensure that they reflected ABA  standards. MPDC incorporated ABA’s comments when formulating  proposed rules to govern the use of its CCTV system, and the Mayor  presented the proposed rules to the D.C. City Council. At a hearing before  the D.C. City Council, witnesses testified that the use of CCTV should be  legislated by the D.C. Council before any further consideration of MPDC’s  proposed rules. The council subsequently enacted a D.C. statute, which  required MPDC to issue CCTV regulations subject to the approval of the  D.C. City Council. MPDC’s proposed regulations were subsequently  published in the D.C. Register for public comment on September 6, 2002.
The D.C. Council passed a resolution approving the proposed regulations  on November 7, 2002. The final regulations set out the above-mentioned  purposes of D.C.’s CCTV system and provide operating protocols for its  use.
However, the D.C. City Council plans to consider CCTV legislation during  the current council period that would, if enacted, impose additional  requirements on the use of CCTV (such as a requirement to obtain a court  order to use video surveillance technology with certain telescopic zoom  capabilities) and would require MPDC and other D.C. government  agencies to promulgate regulations consistent with the legislation. In  addition, the bill would authorize a pilot project for the purpose of  evaluating the effectiveness of video surveillance as a crime prevention  tool. In particular, the bill would allow the installation of video  surveillance technology in two D.C. neighborhoods for a period not to  exceed 1 year to assess whether it was an effective crime prevention tool.  D.C. residents, neighborhood organizations, and advocacy groups  provided testimony both for and against MPDC’s use of CCTV during  public hearings held in December 2002 on the proposed bill.
section_title: United States Park Police Operating CCTV on a Continuous Basis
paragraphs: The United States Park Police is installing CCTV cameras to combat  terrorism and to further law enforcement and public safety objectives.  According to the Chief of the United States Park Police, the United States  Park Police’s CCTV system is to operate cameras located along the  Monumental Core. The United States Park Police used CCTV for a single  day on July 4, 2002, during the celebrations on the National Mall, and then  the system was turned off pending completion of system implementation  and the development of a policy. The United States Park Police developed  a one-page policy for its use of CCTV on this day, and this policy became  inactive at the end of the day. According to the Chief, the United States  Park Police initially planned to wait until its policy was complete to  resume the operation of its CCTV system; however, they used the cameras  during large-scale demonstrations on the National Mall and when the  Department of Homeland Security increased the national threat level to  high alert (code orange). Subsequently, officials said that the United States  Park Police’s CCTV system has been used continuously since March 2003,  following a security-related incident on the National Mall. The CCTV  system was operated under a draft policy each time it was activated. The  United States Park Police staff monitors the cameras from a secured,  controlled access United States Park Police facility. According to the  Chief, as of May 2003, the United States Park Police continues to add  cameras to its system and is operating under the auspices of a draft policy.  The United States Park Police does not plan to publicly disclose the exact  locations or the number of cameras used in their system due to their  concerns that individuals could use this information to defeat the system  or vandalize the cameras. According to United States Park Police officials,  the decision to post signs indicating that CCTV is in use is currently under  evaluation, and a decision had not been made at the time of our review.
Some of the United States Park Police’s cameras have pan, tilt, and zoom  capabilities and others have motion detecting capabilities. The Chief of the  United States Park Police said that their choice of CCTV equipment was  based on what was determined to be the most appropriate technology at  the time. According to the Chief, the United States Park Police does not  have plans to network its cameras to other agencies such as MPDC,  though the cameras are equipped to do so. The Chief said that, in addition  to viewing its own CCTV monitors, the Park Police is authorized to view  MPDC’s monitors in MPDC’s Joint Operations Command Center. The  United States Park Police’s CCTV system is being purchased with  appropriated funds at a cost of approximately $2.037 million.
section_title: United States Park Police Is Developing a Policy to Guide Its Use of CCTV
paragraphs: The United States Park Police’s use of CCTV is not specifically governed  by any federal law or regulation. While there may be limitations protecting  individuals against abuse of CCTV by federal law enforcement officers,  such limitations do not arise from federal laws or regulations specifically  addressing how federal law enforcement agencies are to use CCTV.  However, the United States Park Police is in the process of developing a  CCTV policy. As of May 2003, the United States Park Police is in the  process of finalizing a draft policy that is to guide the use of its CCTV  system, and its policy has not been reviewed outside the Department of  the Interior. According to an Interior official, the United States Park Police  is not required to obtain public comment on its proposed CCTV policy;  however, it is considering providing the public an opportunity to  comment.
section_title: MPDC and United States Park Police Officials Said that Regulations and a Draft Policy Address Concerns
paragraphs: MPDC officials said that they had adopted regulations, and United States  Park Police officials said that they were drafting a policy to address issues  raised by civil liberties advocates. Both the regulations and the draft policy  have incorporated management controls to address issues regarding  individual privacy and the proper use of CCTV. Regarding the issue of  CCTV effectiveness, MPDC and the United States Park Police both  maintained that CCTV is an effective law enforcement tool and that they  plan to measure the effectiveness of their CCTV systems. However, both  entities are of the opinion that measuring CCTV effectiveness may be  difficult.
subsections: section_title: MPDC and United States Park Police CCTV Privacy Policies
paragraphs: MPDC’s regulations and the United States Park Police’s draft policy  address the protection of individual privacy in the following ways: MPDC’s  regulations state that the CCTV cameras are to be used to observe  locations that are in public view where there is no reasonable expectation  of privacy. A senior MPDC official said that MPDC’s CCTV cameras are  equipped with software that blocks the viewing of private areas, such as  apartment windows and residential backyards. According to the Chief of  Police, the United States Park Police has taken a similar position. This  official said that they would focus their cameras on public park areas and  public activities where there is no constitutionally protected expectation  of privacy.
MPDC and the United States Park Police both maintain that their CCTV  systems are to be operated in public spaces without infringing on  individuals’ First Amendment rights. MPDC’s regulations state that under  no circumstances is the CCTV system to be used for the purpose of  infringing on First Amendment rights. The regulations state that CCTV  operators are not to focus on hand bills or fliers that are being distributed  or carried pursuant to First Amendment rights. According to the Chief of  the United States Park Police, the department is also committed to  ensuring that individuals are able to freely exercise their First Amendment  rights. The United States Park Police’s draft policy states that CCTV  operators are not to target or focus on the faces of individuals engaging in  First Amendment protected activities unless there is an indication of a  criminal activity or threat to public safety. In addition, according to the  Chief, the United States Park Police’s draft CCTV policy strikes a balance  between providing safety for citizens and protecting the privacy of  demonstrators at various rallies and protests on the National Mall.
section_title: MPDC and the United States Park Police CCTV Management Controls Address Proper Use of CCTV Systems
paragraphs: MPDC and United States Park Police officials have in place or are putting  in place, respectively, management controls for operating their CCTV  systems and handling CCTV images. Specifically, MPDC’s regulations and  the United States Park Police’s draft policy address the need for  appropriate supervision to protect against inappropriate use of their  systems and establish procedures for appropriate access to and handling  of CCTV images. According to MPDC’s regulations, only the Chief of  Police is to authorize use of the CCTV system. This authorization must be  in writing except in situations involving exigent circumstances or  demonstration purposes. In addition, an official in the rank of Lieutenant  or above is to be present at all times during system activation and usage  and is to supervise and monitor the CCTV activities. Only certified  operators are to be allowed to operate the system. MPDC’s regulations  state that every system activation is to be documented and that the  activation information is to include the disposition of any observed  incidents, a copy of any written authorizations pertaining to each  activation, the names of any individuals activating the system, and  documentation of when activation began and ended. The United States  Park Police’s draft policy states that the supervisory official assigned to, or  responsible for, the control room is to monitor the activities of assigned  personnel to ensure full compliance with the policy statement. All CCTV  system operators are to be trained and supervised while operating the  system. To ensure compliance with its regulations, MPDC’s regulations  state that audits are to be conducted by its Office of Professional  Responsibility on at least a quarterly basis. According to a senior MPDC  official, a compliance audit had been completed recently and found that  the system was in full compliance with MPDC’s regulations. Similarly, the  Chief of the United States Park Police said that random audits are to be  performed to ensure that the CCTV system is used properly.
Furthermore, MPDC’s regulations state that unauthorized use or misuse of  the CCTV system by operators is subject to criminal prosecution and/or  administrative sanctions, including termination. A policy drafted by the  United States Park Police states that their CCTV cameras are to be  operated and supervised by the United States Park Police in a professional  manner and only to further legitimate law enforcement and public safety  objectives. In addition, the United States Park Police draft policy states  that no person is to be targeted or monitored merely because of race,  religion, gender, or political affiliation. Further, the Chief of the United  States Park Police said that the United States Park Police does not plan to  make use of the zoom capability unless suspicious activity is detected.
MPDC and the United States Park Police have addressed data collection  and management issues by restricting access to their CCTV systems and  outlining the security procedures for maintaining recorded images. MPDC  houses its CCTV system in a secure control room, which is protected  against unauthorized access by the use of bar-coded identification cards  and a palm-print recognition system. Only federal agencies with a valid  interest in viewing the cameras, such as the Federal Bureau of  Investigation and the United States Park Police, are to gain access to the  CCTV control room. According to the Chief of Police, agencies that have  access to the Joint Operations Command Center are required to sign a  memorandum of understanding stating that they will comply with MPDC  regulations. According to MPDC’s regulations, the Chief of Police is to  issue written authorization prior to recording any CCTV images, except in  exigent circumstances or when recording is being done pursuant to a  court order. The regulations also require that every recording is to be  documented in the same manner as every system activation and that all  recorded CCTV footage is to be secured. The regulations further state that  recordings will be retained for 10 business days and then destroyed, unless  they are to be retained as evidence in a criminal case, a civil suit against  MPDC, or for training purposes, as authorized in writing by the Chief of  Police. Recordings retained for criminal or civil proceedings must be  secured as evidence; recordings retained for training purposes may only  be retained for as long as they are actively used.
United States Park Police draft policy states that CCTV images are to be  transmitted through secured channels, and monitoring of the CCTV  cameras is to be done from a controlled facility. Access to the controlled  facility, as well as access to live or recorded CCTV images is to be limited  to authorized personnel, for law enforcement and public safety purposes,  or for civil litigation and disciplinary purposes. In order for another law  enforcement agency to gain access to the recorded CCTV images, the  Chief of the United States Park Police opined that there would need to be  a clear nexus with a crime. Additionally, according to the draft policy,  recordings are to be retained for no more than 6 months and then  destroyed unless needed as evidence for a documented criminal incident.  The draft policy also states that in the event that a video recording needs  to be retained for more than 6 months, the reason, length of time, and  chain of custody is to be documented.
section_title: MPDC and the United States Park Police Perceive Measuring the Effectiveness of CCTV to be Difficult, but Plan to Develop Measures
paragraphs: A D.C. official said that the effectiveness of MPDC’s CCTV system is  difficult to measure because of its limited use of the cameras. Further, the  Chief of Police said that crime statistics could not be used to evaluate the  effectiveness of the cameras since MPDC currently does not use the  cameras specifically to detect crime. The regulations state that the general  purpose of the cameras is to help manage public resources during major  public events and demonstrations and to coordinate traffic control. This  purpose reflects a mission of deterring crime and minimizing traffic  problems. Measuring deterrence can be difficult without a comparison  between similar areas with and without CCTV. Measuring CCTV  effectiveness may be further complicated by the use of other law  enforcement interventions such as improved lighting and notices about  CCTV. Thus, demonstrating a direct cause and effect relationship between  decreased crime and CCTV may not be easy to do.
MPDC’s CCTV regulations require MPDC to prepare an annual report that  includes, among other things, an evaluation of whether the cameras have  achieved their purposes as outlined in the regulations. According to a  senior MPDC official, an annual report has not been prepared to date  because the system has not been operational for one year. Although crime  control is not the stated purpose of MPDC’s CCTV system, an MPDC  official said that MPDC’s CCTV cameras have caught crimes. The official  provided an anecdotal example of the system’s effectiveness—the CCTV  cameras were activated for a high-profile sporting event and subsequently  caught some car thieves.
United States Park Police officials also said that it has been difficult to find  measures of effectiveness for such things as crime prevention related to  CCTV use. To measure effectiveness of their CCTV system, the Chief of the  United States Park Police said that once their system is activated, they  plan to track arrests made resulting from camera use.
Overall, both MPDC and the United States Park Police view CCTV as a  valuable complement to their other policing efforts. MPDC and United  States Park Police officials said that they have received positive feedback  from the community, including, in some cases, requests for more CCTV  cameras and in others, gratitude from residents for going the extra mile to  make them feel safe.
section_title: Public Feedback on MPDC’s Regulations
paragraphs: MPDC made its regulations available for public comment and held  hearings regarding the operation of its CCTV system. At hearings, MPDC  received positive and constructive feedback regarding its CCTV  regulations. MPDC also received positive feedback from the ABA  regarding its regulations. ABA reviewed MPDC’s draft regulations in  comparison with its published standards and concluded that MPDC’s  regulations comply with ABA’s standards on video surveillance.
Other feedback was less positive. The Constitution Project, a nonprofit  scholarship and advocacy organization, provided draft comments on  MPDC’s regulations and noted several areas that lacked clarity and  specificity. For example, the Constitution Project stated that  comprehensive training and instruction for CCTV operators is essential to  enable them to better navigate the line between appropriate investigation  and infringement of civil liberties, noting that there are no provisions in  MPDC’s regulations that detail what credentials and training are required  to obtain certification to operate the CCTV system.
The Constitution Project also commented, among other things, that posted  signs indicating the presence of CCTV cameras should contain contact  information of an independent entity that concerned residents can contact  should they believe that the cameras’ presence is invasive, unnecessary, or  utilized improperly. Further, the Constitution Project stated that the audit  provisions in MPDC’s regulations raise the larger question of whether the  entity conducting the audit is sufficiently independent to perform a  credible audit function.
section_title: Experiences of Other CCTV Users in the United States and UK Reveal Best Practices for Other Interested Locations
paragraphs: Officials in the selected U.S. cities and in the UK shared with us practices  that they considered beneficial to help ensure proper and effective use of  CCTV systems. Because of their extensive use of CCTV to deter, detect,  and investigate crime, the experiences from UK officials offered a greater  number of best practices than the selected U.S. cities, though models from  other countries are not always applicable to the United States. Like MPDC  and the United States Park Police, the UK and the selected cities have  grappled with how to measure the effectiveness of their CCTV systems.
subsections: section_title: Public Notice Helps to Address Privacy Concerns
paragraphs: UK officials said that gaining acceptance of their CCTV systems was based  on having honest, open, and fair communication between the community  and the authorities. CCTV users who managed the CCTV systems in the  UK said that obtaining buy-in from stakeholders such as the public, in  addition to operating the system in an open environment, was an  important factor in mitigating concerns about the use of CCTV. For  example, according to a UK official, one borough invited the public (and in  some instances, former and suspected criminals) to tour its control room  to show them the reality of how the system is used to identify criminals.
Like MPDC and the United States Park Police, many of the selected U.S.  cities encountered concerns and skepticism by the ACLU and others  regarding their use of CCTV to monitor public spaces. In some cases, the  public has also voiced concerns about how CCTV may be used and  whether it might infringe upon their individual privacy. In response to the  privacy concerns, CCTV users in the selected U.S. cities have generally  provided citizens with notification of the intent to use CCTV and provided  avenues for the public to comment and provide feedback. Each city posted  signage that indicated that CCTV was in use. Also, CCTV users in some of  the selected cities allowed the public to comment on aspects of the CCTV  system through community meetings and public hearings. Officials in one  city said that the public was also informed through a media campaign that  detailed the specifics of the CCTV system. The Chief of Police in one city  said that he had personally held conversations with residents to assure  them that the CCTV cameras would not compromise their privacy.
section_title: Having Standards Helps to Alleviate Objections to the Use of CCTV
paragraphs: The UK government saw a need to establish controls over the use of CCTV  systems in order to maintain public confidence. UK officials generally  recognized the importance of having regulations in place to govern CCTV  systems, stating that having standards makes citizens feel more  comfortable and safe regarding how the system is being operated. CCTV  standards were established through the Data Protection Act of 1998.  Among other things, the standards addressed individual privacy issues in  relation to CCTV use. According to a UK official, there was no statutory  basis for systematic legal control of CCTV surveillance over public areas in  the UK until March 2000, when the Data Protection Act of 1998 was  implemented.
The Data Protection Act is the principal legislation that impacts the  operation of public space CCTV systems in the UK. Under the Data  Protection Act, the UK Information Commissioner issued a CCTV Code of  Practice to provide specific standards to CCTV operators on how to  comply with the act’s data handling principles. According to the UK  Information Commissioner, the Code of Practice has the dual purpose of  assisting CCTV operators to understand their legal obligations while also  reassuring the public of the safeguards that should be in place when  utilizing CCTV. The Code of Practice also indicates standards that are not  strict legal requirements, but represent good practice. UK Home Office  officials said that CCTV users follow the Code of Practice and comply with  the Data Protection Act of 1998 because they recognize that the act and  the code both help to alleviate objections to the use of CCTV.
For the selected U.S. cities, there were no state laws or regulations  specifically governing how state or local law enforcement officers were to  use CCTV systems to monitor public spaces. While there may be  limitations on law enforcement’s use of CCTV in these states, such  limitations do not stem from comprehensive state CCTV laws or  regulations. However, police departments in these cities generally had  policies, which varied in detail and in content, to govern the use of their  CCTV systems. Organizations, including the ABA, IACP, and SIA, have  developed standards and guidelines that address privacy issues and  controls on CCTV use. ABA saw a need to develop standards in order to  help ensure that law enforcement agencies are aware of all the relevant  considerations with regard to CCTV use and to prompt these agencies to  create their own internal guidelines for the use of CCTV technology.  According to the IACP and SIA they collaborated to produce guidelines  because, despite the prevalence of CCTV use on national and local levels,  there were no consistent policies or procedures guiding the use of CCTV  systems. The IACP and SIA recommend that law enforcement agencies  and public safety officials adopt some or all of their guidelines to assist in  their use of CCTV.
section_title: Clear Goals and Purpose Help Ensure Appropriate Use and Alleviate Concerns Raised
paragraphs: To help ensure that CCTV systems are used effectively, some CCTV users  in the UK indicated that it is important to have a plan prior to the  implementation of the CCTV system that should include clear, realistic,  and measurable goals for the CCTV system, as well as how CCTV might  address the goals. For example, clear goals would include, among other  things, identifying the highest-priority problems to be addressed by the  system, problem locations, and what is to be observed. UK officials also  said that matching the CCTV technology to the purpose and goals of the  system is a key factor in the effective use of CCTV. For example, if the  purpose of the CCTV system is to deter crime, CCTV users may not need  cameras that pan, tilt, and zoom. Rather, the CCTV users may determine  that viewing and/or recording activity from fixed cameras used to observe  broad areas is sufficient to meet their needs. However, if the purpose of  the CCTV system is to detect crime and intervene, a CCTV user may  consider continuously monitoring the CCTV cameras in order to be able to  quickly respond to certain incidents. Clear and measurable goals identify  the problems to be addressed by CCTV and can include a range of  measures to determine whether goals have been achieved, such as the  change in crime levels or the change in public attitudes about crime.
CCTV users in the selected cities whose CCTV systems were fully  operational have been able to make the systems more effective and  respond to some privacy concerns by appropriately matching the  technology being used with the intended purpose. In one instance, a  representative said that the ACLU’s concerns were mitigated because they  installed cameras without enhanced features, such as zoom capabilities.  They said that limited monitoring of the CCTV images, along with the fact  that the cameras do not pan, tilt, or zoom limits the potential for the  invasion of individual privacy. In contrast, CCTV users in selected cities  that installed cameras that did pan, tilt, or zoom lessened their chances of  abuse by reducing the time spent visually monitoring the cameras. For  example, in two cities, CCTV users only monitored the cameras during  designated times or at designated events, such as Sunday nights preceding  Monday holidays in a busy entertainment district. Officials in one of the  two cities said that the cameras were visually monitored everyday during  the tourist season and only monitored on weekends during the off-season.
section_title: Training and Audits May Help to Ensure Proper Use of CCTV
paragraphs: UK officials said that they preferred a well-trained and professional staff to  operate their CCTV system. According to one UK official, CCTV systems  involve human interaction, requiring a manager and requiring training on  how to use the system. The official also said that the most successful  CCTV systems have good managers, good training, and sound procedures.
UK officials have identified performing audits of CCTV systems as a way to  hold CCTV users accountable for their actions and deter misuse while  operating CCTV systems. In one UK location, the activities of each CCTV  operator can be traced and audited via computer. In addition, a CCTV user  in the UK planned to employ the use of outside inspection teams to  perform random audits. The inspection teams are to have full authority to  observe how the CCTV system is being operated, although the CCTV  system observed had not yet performed any audits at the time of our visit.
In the selected U.S. cities, CCTV operators were trained to use CCTV by  the vendor providing the CCTV technology, or in some cases, by senior  management. For example, one city official said that the city’s CCTV  vendor would provide a minimum of approximately 2 to 3 days of training  on the use of the CCTV system in two parts: (1) command and control of  the system and (2) retrieving CCTV images from the system.
CCTV users in selected U.S. cities also found audits to be helpful. To help  ensure that CCTV systems are not misused, an official in one city said that  the city formed a steering and audit committee comprised of citizens to  ensure that CCTV operations were in compliance with written procedures  in order to avoid misuse of the CCTV system. Another city official said that  committee members were allowed to visit the CCTV control room  whenever they wanted to review the recorded CCTV images. An official in  another city said that, while not an audit per se, they would review tapes  for inappropriate use of the cameras. For example, he said that review of  the tapes would allow them to determine if the officers monitoring the  cameras were focusing voyeuristically on women.
section_title: Procedures for Handling Data Helps to Ensure Data Are Used Appropriately
paragraphs: CCTV users in the United States and the UK have indicated that an  important consideration in handling CCTV images is providing controls to  guard against abuse or misuse that enable CCTV users to operate CCTV  systems openly enough to gain public acceptability, but not so open as to  invade individual privacy by releasing personal information to  unauthorized individuals. To address concerns related to the maintenance  and storage of data and individual access to data, policies developed by  the selected CCTV users covered various topics related to these issues. In  all of the selected U.S. cities and in the UK, CCTV images were retained for  a specific period of time, after which they were destroyed or reused,  unless they were retained for a bonafide law enforcement investigation. A  UK official said that citizens could obtain access to images of themselves;  however, they have to supply the exact date, time, and location where they  were recorded and the CCTV system blocks any other individuals in view.
In the UK, the Data Protection Act limits the way personal data are  processed in order to protect the privacy of individuals. The act requires  organizations that process personal data to comply with the eight statutory  principles of good data handling. These principles provide that personal  data must be: (1) fairly and lawfully processed in accordance with  applicable statutory conditions; (2) obtained and processed only for  specified, lawful purposes; (3) adequate, relevant, and not excessive in  relation to the purpose for which they are processed; (4) accurate; (5) not  kept longer than necessary; (6) processed in accordance with the data  subject’s rights; (7) secure; and (8) not transferred to countries outside the  European Economic Area without adequate protection for personal data.  The UK Information Commissioner, which is an independent supervisory  authority, enforces and oversees the act’s provisions.
section_title: Measuring Effectiveness of CCTV Perceived to be Difficult, but Desirable
paragraphs: Researchers and others stress the importance of measuring effectiveness  of CCTV systems in order to justify costs and the potential impact on  individuals’ civil liberties. There is general consensus among CCTV users,  privacy advocates, researchers, and CCTV industry groups that there are  few evaluations of the effectiveness of CCTV in reducing crime, and few  jurisdictions are keeping data to demonstrate that their CCTV systems are  effective.
A study undertaken on behalf of the Home Office, found mixed results for  the crime prevention effectiveness of CCTV. However, in October 2002, a  Home Office official said that the Home Office had provided funding for an  evaluation of effectiveness for 17 CCTV systems as part of a CCTV  initiative begun in 1999 for the implementation of 684 local government- operated CCTV systems in the UK. The evaluations are to be completed in  November 2004. Home Office officials cautioned that using crime statistics  as a measure of effectiveness may not be a good measure. They said that  arrest rates might increase because the CCTV cameras view more criminal  activity and police are reacting to more reports originating from CCTV  control centers. They also said that increased crime rates are not  necessarily bad because it may mean more crimes are being reported that  had previously gone undetected. Furthermore, one CCTV user in the UK  said that the effectiveness of various CCTV systems could vary due to  differences in CCTV supervisory personnel, training, and procedures.
Officials in the UK provided anecdotal evidence of how CCTV cameras  have been effective. For instance, officials in one UK location said that  CCTV cameras have observed drug deals and fraudulent passports being  passed. An official also gave an example of a little boy who was abducted  from a shopping center. When the images on the CCTV tape were shown,  officials could discern that the relative heights of the abductors indicated  that two other children took the little boy. Another example involved  bombings of several London pubs. Officials said that CCTV tapes were  used to trace various pieces of evidence to identify the bomber. While the  quality of the pub’s CCTV cameras was not good, the police were still able  to use the images to locate the perpetrator by reviewing CCTV footage  from various entities thereby tracking him on various videotapes until they  were able to identify him and trace his whereabouts. For example, police  used a store’s CCTV cameras to view the perpetrator buying equipment for  the bombs. The official said that the police were convinced they would not  have found the perpetrator without the CCTV cameras, since the bomber  did not have a criminal record and there was no reason to suspect him.
Most CCTV users in the selected U.S. cities whose systems were fully  operational at the time of our visit did not statistically measure the  effectiveness of their CCTV systems. They perceived it to be difficult to  measure, although officials in the selected cities said that CCTV had been  very effective in, among other things, detecting and investigating crime,  monitoring areas for public safety, and enhancing security. Officials  provided anecdotes to demonstrate their system’s effectiveness. For  example, an official in one city said that the CCTV cameras filmed a drug  transaction that resulted in an arrest.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: MPDC and the United States Park Police have implemented CCTV systems  as part of their overall strategies to address crime and terrorism. While  specific uses and guiding protocols vary, both MPDC and the United States  Park Police have installed cameras in areas that are high risk for terrorist  attacks, view their systems from secure control rooms, and use cameras  that have enhanced features, such as zoom capabilities. Measuring CCTV  effectiveness is difficult because of the lack of comparisons of similar  areas with and without CCTV to show a direct cause and effect  relationship, and because it is often used in tandem with other law  enforcement tools. Nevertheless, both MPDC and the United States Park  Police plan to identify performance measures and evaluate effectiveness.
Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about the protection of  privacy and the proper use of CCTV systems. MPDC has adopted  regulations and the United States Park Police is drafting a policy aimed at  incorporating management controls to address such issues. These include  developing written operating protocols, establishing supervision and  training requirements, providing for public notification, and requiring  system audits. It is too early to fully assess the sufficiency and  effectiveness of these controls.
The use of CCTV as a law enforcement tool is growing in the United States  and abroad. The experiences of CCTV users in the United States and the  UK can help guide other jurisdictions that are considering the use of this  law enforcement tool with regard to openness and community  involvement; uniform standards and management controls; and the  establishment of realistic, clear, and measurable performance goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In letters dated June 6, 2003, we requested comments on a draft of this  report from MPDC and the Department of the Interior. Officials from both  police departments generally agreed with the report and our presentation  of information regarding their CCTV use.
On June 23, 2003, the Department of the Interior provided written  technical comments, which were included as appropriate. In its comments,  Department of the Interior officials indicated that the United States Park  Police’s draft CCTV policy is in the final stages of review and is expected  to be finalized within 2 weeks of the date of its written comments. MPDC  had no technical corrections.
We are providing copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking  Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the  Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, and the Senate and  House Committees on the Judiciary. We are also providing copies of this  report to the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice for Washington,  D.C.; the Chief, Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C.;  Secretary of the Department of the Interior; the Director of the National  Park Service; and the Chief, United States Park Police. Copies of this  report will be made available to other interested parties. This report will  also be available on GAO’s Web site at http:/www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail  at stanar@gao.gov or Linda Watson, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-8685  or by e-mail at watsonl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were   Leo Barbour, Christine Davis, Glenn Dubin, Michele Fejfar, Jamila Jones,  Nettie Richards, Amy Rosewarne, and Carrie Wilks.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine how the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of  Columbia (MPDC) and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s United States  Park Police have implemented their closed-circuit television (CCTV)  systems, we interviewed officials from both agencies. We obtained and  reviewed congressional hearing records related to the use of CCTV in  Washington, D.C. We attended a D.C. City Council public hearing and  obtained testimonies of officials and civilians who addressed the city  council. At the United States Park Police, we obtained documents related  to the use of CCTV as well as congressional testimony regarding their use  of CCTV. We interviewed representatives from the American Bar  Association (ABA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the  Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the International  Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and the Security Industry  Association (SIA) to obtain their views on the use of CCTV and obtained  documentation from them regarding issues of concern to their  organizations. In addition, we toured MPDC’s Joint Operations Command  Center.
To determine how MPDC and the United States Park Police have  implemented management controls to respond to the issues surrounding  their use of CCTV, we interviewed MPDC and United States Park Police  officials and obtained and reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies,  and other documents. We also obtained and reviewed testimonies of  officials and civilians at D.C. City Council public hearings and reviewed  draft comments by the Constitution Project that critiqued MPDC’s  regulations. We did not evaluate or test compliance with MPDC’s or the  United States Park Police’s management controls.
To learn about the experiences of other CCTV users in the United States  and the United Kingdom (UK) we reviewed various studies and reports on  CCTV use by law enforcement. We reviewed studies and reports by or for  SIA, the California Research Bureau, RAND, and the UK Home Office,  among others. We judgmentally selected four U.S. cities to visit and  obtained information on their use of CCTV. The four cities selected were:  Baltimore, Maryland, because of its proximity to D.C.; Columbia, South  Carolina, because officials in this city were in the early stages of  implementing their CCTV system; and Tampa, Florida, and Virginia Beach,  Virginia, because their CCTV systems were equipped with facial  recognition software, and we wanted to include locations that were using  CCTV with advanced features. At each location, we interviewed officials  regarding privacy concerns, if any, that had resulted from their use of  CCTV, conducted research for any relevant state laws or regulations,  obtained and reviewed policies and other documentation related to the  operation of their systems, and inquired about whether they had measured  the effectiveness of their CCTV systems. In two cities, we toured the  control rooms from which the cameras were operated and monitored. We  visited the UK to learn from its experiences with CCTV use in a law  enforcement capacity. We met with UK Home Office officials and CCTV  users in the UK to determine what their experiences have been and  whether they measured the effectiveness of their systems. In the UK, we  interviewed government officials in the Home Office and CCTV users in  Newham and Westminster—boroughs of London—and the city of  Sheffield. We also observed CCTV operations in these locations. In  addition, we interviewed a representative of a private UK CCTV User  Group that provides assistance to CCTV users. To obtain a broader  perspective on privacy issues, we also interviewed a representative of  Privacy International in London.
We performed our audit work from July 2002 to May 2003 in Washington,  D.C., and other cited locations in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Implementation of CCTV Systems in Selected U.S. Cities
paragraphs: The following provides a summary of how each of the four cities we  selected to visit has implemented their respective CCTV systems. The four  cities were at different stages of development in implementing their  systems and, generally were using CCTV to achieve different purposes.
In Baltimore, a representative said that the city’s CCTV system was  implemented in 1994 to deter crime. This system consisted of 64 CCTV  cameras installed in the downtown area. The CCTV system was  implemented to address property crimes and the community’s negative  perception of safety. Both Baltimore City law enforcement personnel and  staff from organizations and businesses that participate in the Downtown  Partnership of Baltimore operate the system. The cameras did not have  remote zoom capability and were generally not monitored. Recorded  CCTV images are reviewed for investigative purposes if crimes occur.
The Columbia Police Department implemented a pilot CCTV program in  2002 prior to implementing a final CCTV system. The city’s final CCTV  system was not fully implemented at the time of our review. The pilot  CCTV system involved 3 fixed cameras located in residential areas and  public parks. The Chief of Police in this city said that the city did not hold  any formal hearings before the pilot CCTV system was implemented,  although the use of CCTV was subject to a majority vote by the city  council members. Although a city official said that the city purchased an  additional 12 CCTV cameras for the final system, 3 pilot cameras were  installed and operational at the time of our visit. Through the pilot  program, a city official determined that in addition to monitoring the  cameras from police headquarters, an added benefit would be to enable  officers to monitor cameras from their police cars while on patrol. City  officials decided to expand the CCTV viewing capability by linking the  CCTV system to laptop computers which enabled officers to monitor  CCTV images from their police squad cars.
In Tampa, the police department first deployed CCTV in December 1997 in  a busy entertainment district. An official said that the cameras were  installed to address specific issues in the completion of the public safety  mission, including management of large crowds and the adequate  deployment of police personnel. The system was comprised of 36 CCTV  cameras, all with the ability to pan, tilt, and zoom. The system was also  equipped with facial recognition software. The cameras were monitored  during certain nights of the week and during special events by police  personnel.
Officials in Virginia Beach said that the police department began operating  the cameras in 1993 after an incident at a local event provided the impetus.  A city official said the CCTV cameras were used to deter, detect, and  investigate crime; monitor and enhance the security of certain areas; and  apprehend and prosecute suspected criminals and counter terrorism. The  system records images 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and is monitored  every day during the tourist season. During the nonvacation season, police  officers only monitored the cameras on weekends. According to officials,  the police department installed 10 CCTV cameras in a busy  oceanfront/business district. Each CCTV camera had the ability to pan, tilt,  and zoom. The system was also equipped with facial recognition software.
section_title: Appendix III: Implementation of CCTV Systems in the United Kingdom
paragraphs: The United Kingdom (UK) locations that we visited operated CCTV  systems that were similar in purpose and application. There were subtle  variations in the purposes of each system; however, all CCTV systems we  observed were implemented to control some aspect of crime.
In Newham, use of CCTV resulted from a public call to do something  about the increasing crime rate. An official said that since the late 1960s  and early 1970s, the borough had experienced an increase in street-type  crime, which stemmed from structural unemployment and the existence of  a known but relatively small criminal element. Most crime involved  robbery, car theft, harassment, public drunkenness, drug trafficking, and  hooliganism. Officials said that the public felt unsafe doing everyday  things like walking down certain streets or shopping in certain areas.  Therefore, officials said that it was easy to sell CCTV to the borough  council, because the borough had one of the highest burglary and auto  theft rates in the UK, and the public perceived CCTV to be an effective  response to the crime. In 1997, Newham began using CCTV to address  these crime problems.
Officials said that about 10 uniformed civilians per shift operate the  system, which has over 400 CCTV cameras. They explained that one  operator could be responsible for viewing up to about 60 monitors, given  that some of them have screens that can show several camera images  simultaneously. The operators key in on certain areas known to be crime  prone, but also scan other areas to detect potential crimes or crimes in  progress. The operators’ actions are monitored by cameras to help ensure  compliance with rules governing CCTV use. Officials said that officers  operate the system 24 hours a day, and the control center also has a tape  library and facilities for police to review the tapes for evidence.
In Westminster, the borough council and the police department—jointly  with business and community trustees—manage its CCTV system, which  became operational in July 2002. An official noted that the purpose of the  system is to improve the management of public space to enhance public  safety. For example, the officials said that in addition to controlling crime  and disorder, they strive to keep the streets clean and ensure free flow of  traffic. The officials also said their purposes differ between day and night  in that daytime operations often focus more on the environment on the  street such as transportation issues, whereas at night they focus more on  crime and disorder.
At the time of our visit, officials said that 17 cameras were in operation,  but that they expected more. An employee of the borough council  managed the center, and the system operators were civilians (contract  staff). Officials noted that the center was a business area partnership and  that the space they were using was provided rent free to the council for  CCTV operations, adding that capital funding for the center came from the  Home Office and local businesses helped to support the operations. The  center had three operator control positions to monitor CCTV cameras and  18 monitors on the wall for viewing and from which operators could pull  images down to their individual monitors to pan, tilt, and zoom to get a  better view.
Officials noted that they perceive their CCTV system as being a “graded  response system” whereby on the basis of what they observe, they can  notify the relevant agency to take action. For example, if an assault is  observed they notify the police, if trash is left on the street they notify the  trash collectors, or if a car were behaving erratically they would call the  traffic department. Officials told us that this type of approach is the  success of CCTV because it helps to focus on what the problem is and  what the solution is. They also said that usually it is not just CCTV that is  the solution, but the intelligence from CCTV that can be used to solve the  problem.
The city of Sheffield has been utilizing CCTV, operated by the city council,  since about 1997. Officials said that the UK Home Office funded the capital  costs with grants, while the city council funds system operations and  maintenance. Although this city’s CCTV system is similar in application to  the others we visited, the distinction is that this city has a more “joined up”  concept, whereby all area stakeholders that have CCTV systems (city,  train, mall) can forward camera images to other stakeholders’ systems to  provide a more integrated view of the area. Officials explained that, if  needed (bomb scare or terrorist act), the central control center can take  control of any camera in the integrated system, or the command/control  function can be shifted to one of the other two centers. The police can also  be fed the images real-time from the central control center instead of  viewing images later to assemble evidence. Operators can more easily  follow criminals or criminal activity from one camera/system to the next.  This is important, as these officials noted that the area has two of the UK’s  top 20 terrorist targets (a six-lane bridge that is a vital economic link to the  north, and one of the UK’s largest shopping malls). If called on a crime,  however, this city’s cameras can be focused to those areas. At the time of  our review, officials said that the actual linkage between the three control  centers (city, train, mall) was to occur in the near future.
Officials in Sheffield consider the linkage to other CCTV control centers as  essential to the future success of CCTV. For example, officials said that  linking of CCTV could be used to determine how many police and  ambulance units should be deployed or make command/control decisions  after a terrorist attack, such as finding the best route for emergency  response vehicles, and re-routing citizen evacuation traffic.