The study is a sort of "attitude barometer", and has six purposes:

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. Finland has had relatively little research in video 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.

The empirical research material consists of a questionnaire addressed to 16-69 years 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 1240, which gave a response rate of 62 per cent.

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 where 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.

The findings are well in line with what is called common sense - 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.

City of Helsinki Urban Facts, Research Unit
Ms. Hille Koskela, tel. +358 40 732 7325

16/10/2003

Hille Koskela and Martti Tuominen

research

Urban Policy > Security & crime prevention > Crime prevention

Camera surveillance