Summary 16.10.2003

"A two-edged sword” – a research on the attitudes of Helsinki citizens towards video surveillance

In recent years, video surveillance has become more and more common and is today used by police as well as business owners and house-owners. In Finland, speed cameras along roads and security cameras in taxis have stirred the most lively debate. But in other public and semi-public places, too, electronic surveillance is increasing.

Basically, video surveillance is a matter of security. In urban planning and urban policy world-wide, security has become a major issue. In Finland, various ways of increasing people's security have been debated, and the authorities have made strategies ranging from a national programme for crime prevention to local security strategies. A security strategy for Helsinki was approved by the City Council in May 2001. But it does not mention video surveillance.

This is characteristic of the position of video surveillance in Finland today. It plays no major part in law enforcement and is not discussed in terms of a strategic policy. But in practice, video surveillance has taken an important role in both private and public surveillance. Finland is one of Europe's most surveilled countries. It would seem obvious that technological and economic progress have caused the increase in video surveillance. Yet there has been no real debate on whether this surveillance is really needed. Nor has increased surveillance been justified by increasing insecurity.

Finland has had relatively little research in video surveillance. In other countries researchers have been critical to responding to insecurity by increasing control such as surveillance cameras. It has been felt that electronic control stiffens social interaction and contributes to social polarisation. Many security-improving measures tend to imply a loss of something else. In the case of video surveillance, people's privacy suffers.

Security promotion also implies that mental images are created and sold: the security business is growing rapidly, and many surveillance cameras are sold although there is no scientific proof of their effect in, e.g., crime prevention. With the growing importance of surveillance of various kinds, voices have even been raised claiming that we live in a surveillance society today.

Research issues and research material

In our study, we deal with the viewpoints, experiences and opinions of Helsinki citizens on video surveillance. What kinds of feelings does it arouse? What do people think about the way it is implemented? The study amounts to a sort of ”attitude barometer”, and has six main purposes.

First, we look at how video surveillance promotes security and whether it contains elements that cause fear. Second, we view the limits of surveillance: what they are like today and what people think they ought to be like. Third, we study whether, according to Helsinki citizens, increasing electronic surveillance fulfils its purpose and what kind of effects it is expected to have on various types of crimes. Fourth, we discuss a few social issues relating to the protection of people's intimacy and the threat of a “surveillance society”. Fifth, we view people's attitude vis-à-vis the use of camera videotapes for various purposes ranging from crime investigation to TV entertainment. And sixth, we look at the transparency of video surveillance, information about it and the public debate on it.

The empirical research material consists of a questionnaire addressed to 16-69 year old Helsinki citizens. A random sample of 2000 people was taken, and their address data were provided by the Finnish Population Register Centre. The questionnaire was mailed in November and December 2001. The number of approved responses was 1,240, which gave a response rate of 62 per cent.

Main findings

In many respects, respondents thought video surveillance was a useful and good thing, but more critical voices were heard as well. It was usually considered useful and needed for crime prevention and investigation. The fact of being surveilled was also experienced as something mainly positive that improved your security. A minority felt it was embarrassing or annoying to be watched by the cameras. A clear limit was drawn between the kinds of places were surveillance was felt appropriate, and a great majority was against the use of surveillance tapes for entertainment purposes.

70 per cent of respondents felt that surveillance cameras were useful for crime investigation and 58 per cent believed cameras also prevent crime. So by and large, people tend to have a fairly favourable view of how video surveillance influences crime.

32 per cent of respondents wanted video surveillance in their own block of flats or house, while 45 per cent did not want such ”watching”. Considering that video surveillance in residential buildings is still relatively uncommon and that residential buildings are premises of a rather private kind, surprisingly many wanted this kind of surveillance. This would clearly imply that many people feel insecure in their close neighbourhood and feel that crime is a real threat to them.

As to being the target of surveillance oneself, feelings were clearly divided: 63 per cent agreed that it is a good thing that the urban space is surveilled. More than one-third felt that surveillance increased their own sense of security. 38 reported they had not thought too much about the whole thing and 25 per cent that it was of no consequence to them. A minority had reacted negatively – i.e. become embarrassed or annoyed – by the cameras. So, it would seem obvious that people's attitude towards the cameras is dictated by a perceived need for security. Another common opinion was that video surveillance does not hurt ordinary people who have no bad intentions.

A clear picture emerged of what kinds of places people thought surveillance was suited for: over 90 per cent thought it was appropriate in public places such as railway stations, car parks and department stores. A majority also found it inappropriate in many kinds of indoor premises, particularly fitting rooms and restaurant toilets.

Clearer game rules for surveillance were also asked for. 75 per cent thought video surveillance should require a permit. The majority felt that police, watchmen and business-owners should have the right to use video surveillance. Only two per cent thought that private persons should have the right to use surveillance cameras freely.

People's attitude towards the use of surveillance video tapes for various purposes was divided: 90 per cent thought the tapes could be used in crime investigations and trials, but only 14 per cent thought they could be showed on the TV news. Even fewer thought they could be used for entertainment.

And as a rule, people do not seem to know very much about video surveillance. Nor has it been discussed very much in the media. 71 per cent of respondents thought that the matter had not been discussed at all or sufficiently in the press or on TV. Many thought the public had not been informed properly about surveillance.

Understandably, video surveillance is something people do not think too much about in everyday life. Most of us have probably noticed that there are cameras here and there, but most people hardly think about video surveillance as a whole consisting of cameras (or camera systems), of watchmen and of the various purposes for which surveillance video tapes can be used. It is understandable also for the reason that surveillance is partly hidden and that other information about it is usually not handed out than the stickers showing that there are cameras installed.

Since we assumed, when preparing our study, that video surveillance is not something people know very much about, we wanted to ask respondents about their thoughts after they had filled in the questionnaire, when the many questions on the topic supposedly had given them some more perspective on it. Almost all respondents took the opportunity, and responses amounted to a total of almost 3,000 lines. Responses showed a favourable basic attitude towards video surveillance and its effects for improved security. A new opinion and viewpoint expressed was that video surveillance should be increased and developed. Among more critical notes, jeopardised intimacy and the risk of misused videotapes were emphasised. More transparency into surveillance was also asked for.

Our findings are well in line with what we might call common sense. Respondents gave clear motivations for their views, and the picture that emerged was reasonable: surveillance is a good thing as long as it is used sensibly where it is most urgently needed. But there ought to be clear limits and game rules for surveillance: society should regulate it and guarantee a reasonable degree of intimacy at workplaces, in the housing environment and even in the public urban space. And authorities should ensure that surveillants are surveilled, too, and that cameras are not misused.