There have been debates about whether the use of security cameras can actually aid in crime fighting. The debate has come to Buffalo following high profile arrests due to the aid of such surveillance systems.

            The Buffalo authorities made arrests in two recent murder cases, largely aided by surveillance cameras Footage provided by such cameras helped solve the homicide cases of Javon Jackson and Jacob Herbert.

            Such crime deterrent systems are prevalent in large metropolises, but should only be seen as aids to authorities because nothing can replace actual police officers in preventing crime.

            This system might be effective in cities like London, but in a depressed city such as Buffalo, nothing much would change. CCTV will only provide students with a false sense of security. Data shows that cameras don’t deter crime, and given the wild weather conditions in the city, cameras would be rendered ineffective on a regular basis.

            These closed-circuit television systems consist of video cameras that transmit images to a central viewing location; they are generally used to monitor banks, casinos, airports, military installations and convenience stores.

            Look to the United Kingdom, where Urban Eye was recently introduced, for a broader look at the effectiveness of such systems. A team of professors in criminology, philosophers, political scientists, sociologists and urban geographers from six countries assembled a study to test the effectiveness of the system.

            The project, run by the Center of Technology and Science at the Technical Institute in Berlin, focused on analyzing the employment of CCTV in publicly accessible space in Europe, and assessed its social effects and political impacts.

            According to the study’s findings, there are an estimated 4.2 million cameras used in the United Kingdom alone. That would mean there is one camera for every 14 people.

            However, there isn’t any conclusive evidence that such systems actually deter crime. According to a report by United Kingdom Police Chiefs, using CCTV systems helped solve only 3 percent of crimes. Figures so low don’t justify the cost of building, monitoring and maintaining such systems – especially in the greater Buffalo area.

            But those in favor of such systems might have a case. Such systems are commonly used as preventive measures in areas police don’t routinely patrol. CCTV evidence was used in England to solve the case of a series of London bombings in 2005.

            CCTV is best used in tracking abducted children, finding anti-social behavior such as drinking-related incidents and deterring acts of vandalism.

            However, the use of these systems has stirred up privacy issues. In an Orwellian twist, the government can watch as its citizens walk down the street. Experts have argued that the cameras are not intruding into people's privacy, but rather public space, where an individual's right to privacy can logically be weighed against the public's need for protection.

            So far in the United States, courts have found this concern about privacy to be a nonissue. Many have found no violation of civilians’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

            A larger concern is the fact that such systems are easily rendered ineffective. Cameras can be put offline due to substances blurring the lens, lasers altering the camera’s filter and being knocked off their bases.

            There is no doubt that a wider net of surveillance cameras could aid police in investigating crimes. But given the weather conditions and the nature of the area, cameras will only persuade criminals to cover there faces or make blind spots in the system major crime areas.

            Nothing beats the security of a police officer patrolling a street – not even a camera.