SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - San Francisco officials plan to release the results of a report in October regarding the effectiveness of surveillance cameras that have been installed in the city's high-crime areas, according to Mayor Gavin Newsom's spokesman.

"This is one tool that law enforcement can use to fight violent crime and we believe it is worth a try," the mayor's spokesman, Nathan Ballard, said.

The 64 cameras already in use have a price tag of $500,000, Ballard said. The city will be installing 25 new cameras in 2008.

Data collected from surveillance cameras has been used in at least six investigations, Ballard said. One arrest has been made definitively because of the cameras.

"We believe the program is working," Ballard said.

Cities throughout California are working to install such video surveillance cameras on plazas and public streets without regulating them or evaluating their effectiveness, according to an American Civil Liberties Union report.

"We are issuing this report because we are hoping that policy makers will take a step back and question whether this is the road they want to take," said Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director of ACLU's Northern California chapter.

The 25-page report looks at the threat video surveillance cameras pose to privacy and free speech, examines law enforcement justifications for video surveillance programs, and reviews the findings from an ACLU public records survey.

"Our main concern is the privacy issue," Schlosberg said.

"Basically this is doing a great disservice to people who are living in high-crime areas. It is invasive in terms of privacy and ultimately a waste of money."

Camera programs not only don't reduce crime in the city centers, but putting money into such surveillance actually detracts from law enforcement's efforts to reduce crime, according to the ACLU.

The ACLU says other options like improved lighting are more effective. Studies have shown that the average reduction of crime after lighting is improved is 20 percent.

"That is something video surveillance doesn't hold a candle to," Schlosberg said.

Police don't agree.

Surveillance cameras that have been installed in San Francisco not only help solve crimes, but they are effective deterrents, Sgt. Neville Gittens said.

Richmond recently approved 113 surveillance cameras that cost $4 million and Pittsburg has at least 13 cameras, Schlosberg said.

— Bay City News

Comments from Examiner Readers

7:20 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

In the know said:
The use of cameras is not only dependent on location, but the people using the system, the quality and reliability of the device storing the images, as well as the maintenance of the system. This system has been in operation reliably or several years and it is maintained. The news that doesn't get out, because it's not contriversial, is that in fact the system DOES work. It's caught criminals in the act of non-violent and violent crimes, child abductions etc. and reduced the man-effort to find and prosecute criminals. So don't assume you know everything and that the ACLU knows what the heck they are talking about. As usual, they simply stand on their "no big brother" pedestal spouting out the mouth.. that's all they do! Light reduces crime.. sure does, but EVERYTHING else counts too. there is no one solution. So get with it people. It's not a waste of money unless the people controlling the system don't use it and the Pittsburg PD are steadfast in it's usefulness.

3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:40 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

Jon said:
Without wishing to state the obvious, there may be a very good reason why the existing surveillance cameras have not performed as required. It would be unwise to simply assume that the system has been correctly designed, installed and operated, when this news report clearly suggests otherwise.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:21 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

Examiner Reader said:
Security cameras have not managed to STOP anything they've been installed for along the way. They didn't stop IRA bombings in London, they didn't stop the bombings at the Madrid train station. They haven't stopped robberies in convenience stores or gas stations. People still dash across national/international boarders and use execssive speed or run red lights on the roads, to name a few things. You name it and the cameras didn't STOP it. An argument might be made for their ability to LIMIT such actions.

0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:23 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

logicbomb said:
So the police are against the cameras, and the civil liberty groups are against the cameras, and the criminals keep on committing crimes despite the cameras. Discontinuing this program, according to its status quo, is a no-brainer.

0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007 re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"

Examiner Reader said:
Cameras can't catch criminals, cameras can't stop a crime in progress, and cameras don't deter criminals who know they will not be convicted, not earn a long sentence or not be eligible for the death penalty. The only solution to crime is to eliminate violent criminals swiftly and permanently, preferably via execution, but life sentences are okay provided they stay in prison until the die.

62 agree | 276 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007 re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"

Smile! said:
As of today, 213 people have been murdered in Baltimore. We have many cameras. Want safety? Get out of the city--whatever city you're in.

317 agree | 63 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:34 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007 re: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in S.F."

Gretchen said:
I find the headline for this article: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in SF" very intriguing. As a resident in the Mission district I attend monthly community meetings at the Police Dept and almost every meeting someone brings up a request for more cameras in more locations. The police department repeatedly tells us it can't be done due to the trial period, the cost, the process, yadda, yadda, yadda. So here's the question: If the public wants the cameras, and the only complaints about "civil liberties" are from a couple members of the Board of Supes, why is the use of cameras portrayed as a "dicey issue"? Isn't it more of a "Progressives prevent crime abatement by protecting civil liberties of crooks" issue? We read articles and comments about "police not doing their job" but we never seem to read articles about "Supes putting up roadblocks to police doing their job." Please tell McGoldrick that he doesn't speak for the citizens of the Mission district - we want cameras

139 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate