Recently, as I was reading through my regular morning websites about the security industry, I came upon an interesting post. It appears DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has taken a liking to a network of more than 10,000 cameras securing the city of Chicago. The security network bears a resemblance to those implemented in London and Madrid, according to the DHS Secretary. She praised the cameras, commenting that: “They are deterrents.”

CCTV Cameras Have Minimal Impact

My question to the good Secretary is: deterrents of… what, exactly? London and Madrid have been frequently attacked over the last few decades by terrorist extremists. Multiple government agencies including the London Metropolitan Police and the British Democratic Party estimate that cameras, in fact, deter little to no crime. Police studies confirm that only one crime is solved per 1,000 cameras. Yet we find ourselves defaulting back to the same worn out principles that somehow illegally observing more people might lessen our chance of getting assaulted. Crime rates HAVE gone down in Chicago, yes, but only as a part of a larger trend of lesser crime in America. Violent crime rates did not descend any faster in a city with 15,000 (by some estimates) surveillance devices than in other major cities. This casts genuine doubt upon the suggestion that the cameras have done their job, especially amidst the cost to personal liberties.

Working in the marketing department of a security firm that sells similar cameras puts me in a strange position. Sometimes it is hard to separate my desire to be successful for myself and my company with what I think is the right thing for this country. However, in doubt I always ask myself: what is the point of security? For me, that answer is simple. Security is the defense of the lifestyle and country that I love. It is implemented to protect our soil from terrorists, violent drug cartels, thieves, and other criminals who do damage to our societal order. Those are the reasons that I love to market security. However, at the same time I know that our free society is dependent on liberty and privacy. If by doing its job to protect us security also destroys the nature of the country we are trying to protect, it has failed.

Government Must Safeguard Democracy Principles

It is not surprising to me that the Secretary of Homeland Security praised extensive security measures. It is also not surprising the citizenry of Chicago actually supports this surveillance network, despite its questionable efficacy in practice. You have to expect that people will support measures that make them feel better or that sound good in theory. However, I contend that spending tax money on a large and ineffective system is actually a disservice to the citizens of Chicago. Further, the destruction of essential principles of democracy, such as privacy, is not worth a security system that doesn’t hold weight.

To be clear, I think there is nothing wrong with any individual protecting his or her assets. Buildings with access control and security guards, or construction areas with DVR cameras are all reasonable examples of managing risk. The fault comes when the government decides to surveil regular citizens on public land without their knowledge or consent. Far from private property or personal assets, this is out in the common space where our government has no business interfering. Invading that sphere is not “progress” made by our society, but the opposite. As an industry and as a nation, we are better than that.