Image via Wikipedia

So why the positive assessment of this change? Author Julian Sanchez suspects that it may be more of a vote of confidence than a specific opinion; that many people polled simply hope that the increase positively correlates with a safer environment rather than a rational response. Despite studies in San Francisco and London indicating that increased surveillance has little positive effect on reducing crime, many people are either unaware of these studies or would rather cling to the illusion of safety. San Francisco completed a five year study of surveillance cameras and found that petty theft was somewhat reduced (up to 23%) while there was no effect on violent crime. Cameras, if failing in a preventative measure, can only be used in a retrospective manner to try to give authorities a clue as to the perpetrators ID. Does this fact make us feel better, that even if we are violently attacked, at least we may one day learn who was responsible and hopefully have them brought to justice? Perhaps it cuts down on the unknown and boosts the perceived potential for justice. Perhaps, but it seems pretty thin.

What is more interesting to question is why a society in which many voters value freedom and are wary of too much government control would support increased surveillance measures, especially with no tangible results. Even London, with the most dense surveillance network on the face of the Earth, was victim of a bombing on the Tube. The cameras did not deter the perpetrators, nor identify who they were. But still more cameras are added under the auspices of increased safety.

Well, and perhaps in the end that is the point, the illusion or hope of increased safety; the cultural fairytale that we are safer than before, even if in less control. With a fast-paced world seeming ever more chaotic, maybe these cameras serve as a symbol that someone, somewhere, is still in control.

For more insight into this phenomenon, see David Murakami Wood’s blog.

Related articles:

• Out with the Aughts: Big Brother has nothing on this (nationalpost.com)
• A Decade of Innovation: How We See the Internet 10 Years After the Boom (readwriteweb.com)

“In a society under the reformed ‘Real-Time’ Calendar, without history nor future, everybody is faceless. A woman panics when she wakes up one day with a face. With the help of the Spectral Children she slowly finds out more about the lost power and history of the human face and begins the search for its future.”

Image via Wikipedia

This is a fascinating example of how one may sidestep the usual privacy/control/security debate and look at the inherent opportunities of surveillance, particularly huge systems like the one found in London. My architectural thesis project similarly sought to take advantage of surveillance technologies and cultural obsessions of the media image for new explorations in new media art. It will be interesting to see how Faceless is received and what future projects it may inspire.

Related articles:

• Cameras or Cops? (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Explainer: CCTV (guardian.co.uk)
• The real cost – and value – of CCTV | Tom Reeve (guardian.co.uk)