A recurrent gap in any security system arises out of the “stimulus-response” behaviour in uniformed services which is known as “Pavlovian” or “classical” conditioning. Uniformed services are taught to respect authority. We have seen hundreds of cases in which terrorists had gained entry by wearing army or police uniform which elicit classical “stimulus response” from the security guards even if they are sometimes unidentified. As a result security is breached even for a moment which results in grave incidents. Gen. Harold Greene, the highest ranking US military officer killed in a combat zone since Vietnam War, was shot at on August 5, 2014 by a man wearing Afghan Army uniform. Legendary police officer Julio Ribeiro & Mrs.Ribeiro were attacked in Jullunder Police camp in 1986 by terrorists dressed as policemen.
In a similar manner, decreased alertness is experienced in the presence of mechanical or electronic gadgets like metal detectors or CCTV systems which are advertised to ensure guaranteed security. A recent article in “Security Management” has said that human alertness “peaks” in 20 minutes but it is necessary to change monitoring duties every 2 hours for optimal surveillance, which is quite difficult. Also no human being can watch more than 9 to 12 monitors at a time.
All these are relevant while considering the Mumbai city CCTV project which is stalled. A national daily has reported on August 14 that the “ambitious” Mumbai city CCTV project for installing 5,000 cameras has missed another deadline. The report mentions that “Ram Pradhan Committee” had recommended installation of CCTVs in the city. This is wrong as the “Ram Pradhan” Committee of which I was a member, did not make any such recommendation. Such erroneous reports had appeared earlier too. Despite rejoinders such reports surface again and again. We had scrupulously avoided recommending any new equipment as we would have been inundated with visits by foreign vendors who were crawling all over the city after 26/11. It was purely a Maharashtra government decision.
The purpose of this article is not to question the government decision of installing CCTVs but to caution the general public that it will not be a panacea for all security threats. CCTVs are certainly useful in enclosed places or even in open places like car parks and also in some public places where it would help identifying the assailants if the cameras are in satisfactory condition. However the expectation that we shall be able to prevent terrorist attacks merely by installing CCTVs is not realistic.
Experience in other countries on CCTVs is mixed. A 2007 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention study said that CCTV caused a “small but significant” decrease in “Experimental areas” and again spoke of its effectiveness on “crime in car parks.”
Studies from England which has the highest number of cameras in the world (nearly 7 million in 2013) with 1 million in London alone, (1 camera for every 11 people according to “The Telegraph” 10 July 2013) indicate that opinion is varied about the results.
A 1999 paper by University of Wales (Cardiff) discounted any effective correlation between urban violence and CCTVs. A 2005 Home Office study said that CCTVs alone cannot reduce crime but had to be used along with “other measures”. In 2007 “The London Assembly” which is an elected watchdog of 25 members “to examine how effective the Mayor’s policies, decisions and activities are”, obtained information under the “Freedom of Information Act” which indicated that “CCTVs has little effect in solving crime” and that “4 out of 5 boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average”.
A “Daily Telegraph” study (25 Nov 2010) quoting the London Metropolitan Police said that only 1 crime per year was solved for every 1,000 cameras installed. Yet there was a claim in 2013 by the British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) published in the same daily that Scotland Yard had used CCTV footage for 95% of their murder cases in 2009.
A July 2010 paper of the House of Commons Library said that CCTV system in public places in UK started in the 1980s as “Safer City Initiatives”. Major investment was made during 1999-2003 through the Home Office funded “Crime Reduction Programme”. By 2002 there were 4.2 million operational cameras in UK. It quoted a 2008 study by “Campell Collaboration”, an international research network: “Results of this review indicate that CCTV has a modest but significant desirable effect on crime, is most effective in reducing crime in car parks, is most effective when targeted at vehicle crimes (largely a function of the successful car park schemes), and is more effective in reducing crime in the United Kingdom than in other countries”.
The latest available study (2013) is by the College of Policing (UK), a statutory training body in England & Wales. It had taken into account 37 studies from UK, 4 from USA and 1 each from Norway, Sweden and Canada: “CCTVs can lead to a small reduction in crime. CCTV is more effective when directed against specific types of crime; it is effective at reducing theft of and from vehicles, but has no impact on levels of violent crime”. Significantly it suggested that the CCTV system “be more narrowly targeted than its present use would indicate”.
The British experience of “grainy and pixilated” images from majority of their cameras has relevance to the Mumbai project. In May 2009 BBC’s science magazine “Focus” had said that the British TV system was an “utter fiasco” as the cameras were not able to identify images clearly. It took hundreds of man hours to scan through 90,000 frames to identify the Mercedes used in the June 2007 Hay Market bombing. Since then there is a public clamour for changing the analogue system which forms 58.7% of England’s cameras into HD. Another survey in 2013 said that only one tenth of the cameras are HD. Business of HD makers is expected to grow by 14% per year till 2016. I am particularly making this point since the press report of August 14 had quoted Maharashtra Home Department saying “We have also relaxed some norms on the request of the companies”. One only hopes that enough precautions will be taken to procure the latest CCTV system available.
This precaution is necessary in view of the recent disclosure that 1,600 cameras installed in Mumbai city buses(BEST) were mere dummies with no recording facility.This had come to light by mere chance when the police asked for TV footage in a molestation case.