But local politicians seem to see camera surveillance as a “quick fix” for getting into various forms of criminal activity or other disturbances in private residential areas.
The Swedish Crime Prevention Board (Brå) conducted an international knowledge acquisition in 2018 on the experience of surveillance cameras set up in different places and regions. I quote their conclusion:
“The results provide strong support for the fact that camera surveillance has generally been successful in preventing crime in the UK, but not generally in the US, although there are studies with positive results from that country as well. For other existing countries, Sweden among them The data are too small to draw definitive conclusions.”
Since CCTV also affects the privacy of citizens – for example, see if I’m scratching my nose, taking a sip from my bottle, hugging my neighbor, withdrawing cash through an ATM, behaving differently is not punishable but perhaps perverted – so I think Local politicians are thinking again about what would be more effective for citizens to feel less anxious when they are in “vulnerable” areas.
Of course, there are not only such areas, for example, Perga. Even a night walk home along the Ogatan can sometimes feel unsafe.
I hope the two politicians don’t think more CCTV will give extra ballot papers before the 2022 elections. Um?