Fighting Crime From Above?

A blog about surveillance cameras in public and private spaces

Fighting Crime From Above? header image 2

CNN: Baghdad surveillance crews watch helplessly as bombs explode

September 2nd, 2009 · 4 Comments · Public Policy Failure, Public Surveillance Failure

According to CNN, 113 surveillance cameras covering 5% of Baghdad were installed to assist in "predicting terrorism". The above video shows the surveillance camera operators watching traffic and failing to identify the motives of the terrorists.  When the operators fail to predict the future, they "cringe with guilt".

The center was set up a year and a half ago, with employees on the lookout for trouble, as police officers in a back room listen to the traffic on their radios. But there are not enough cameras to cover all of Baghdad — only 5 percent of the city is surveilled under the current system.

The cameras picked up suspicious activity last Wednesday, but within 20 seconds — before any action could be taken — a truck blew up in front of the Foreign Ministry building. By day's end, bombings had killed nearly 100 people in the city.

The fledgling security surveillance operation has a long way to go, its director acknowledges. The center is understaffed and not yet open around the clock.

Though overall attacks have decreased in Iraq, the images on screen serve as undeniable evidence of the ongoing violence the Iraqi government is struggling to prevent.

That effort includes 113 security cameras placed mainly around government buildings throughout the city, though not all are functioning at any given time. Each work station at the surveillance center monitors the feeds from 10 cameras.

After last week's bombings — which made Wednesday the bloodiest day in Iraq since U.S. combat troops withdrew from Iraqi cities at the end of June — the center's managers met with Iraqi security forces in an effort to increase the number of cameras.

"We should all admit responsibility for this major breach of security," the director said. "And we have to fix the system."

For now, as the carnage fills the screen like a violent movie, employees cringe with guilt. They know that every time there is a blast on screen, it's because they were not able to prevent it.

Installing surveillance cameras and a command center in Baghdad is a logical thing to do, there is no refuting that.  However, the Baghdad security director should not be making statements correlating the ability to find terrorists on the streets and the need for more cameras.

It is illogical to assume that by installing more surveillance cameras the operators will be in a better position to identify and intervene a potential terrorist act.  It is a proven fact surveillance cameras do not deter violent crime, and conversely, public cameras are extremely poor at convicting criminals.  In this situation, the Baghdad cameras should only be used to determine if any incidents have happened, identify the magnitude of the problem, and dispatch appropriate resources.  The end result can ultimately be efficient dispatching of ambulances, and lives saved.

Tags:

4 Comments so far ↓

  • John Honovich John Honovich

    Where is the article does any of the participants directly say that they are using the system for quote unquote "predicting terrorism"?

    I agree that it's unreasonable to think they can predict terrorism but I don't think reasonable people would expect to be able to do so.

  • Ksenia Coffman Ksenia Coffman

    I believe the tone of the story is that "the operators feel guilty that they cannot *prevent* terrorism" and reason being that the cameras "only cover 5% of the city."

    I do agree that it's unreasonable to expect to *prevent* terrorism even with 100% coverage. The blog's conclusion about timely & adequate response is the right one, not the doom-and-gloom tone of the story. (Do reporters get special training in sounding so accusatory and woe-is-us?)

  • Christian Laforte Christian Laforte

    I work for Feeling Software, developers of Omnipresence 3D. We are participating in several bids for city-wide surveillance solutions in developing countries.

    I think having only 5% coverage is useless for preventing terrorism. Every project we bid on (even cities smaller than Baghdad) includes at least 1800 high-end cameras, including LPRs. It blows my mind that Baghdad has such a small number of cameras considering the daily threats they face there. I hope it's only a temporary situation and they are installing more cameras as we speak.

    City-wide video surveillance is rarely effective against a lone suicide bomber. Where it can make a strategic difference is in learning more about the terrorist cell after the fact, to assist in preventing further attacks. Where they operate from, who are they, who are their collaborators, etc…

    For this to work, you need enough camera coverage to track where the terrorist was in the hours or days preceding the attack, and you need efficient tools to sift through the information.

    No one single technology provides a perfect solution, but preventing further attacks is possible with more information, e.g. using a licence-plate recognition software, more efficient monitoring tools like Omnipresence, etc.

    Christian Laforte
    President, Feeling Software

  • Sumanta Sen Sumanta Sen

    I am totally agree with Christian… 5% coverage is useless for preventing terrorism. Need enough camera coverage with video analytics software.

    Sumanta Sen
    Business Development Executive
    Videonetics Technology Pvt. Ltd.
    sumanta.sen@videonetics.com

Leave a Comment