Do surveillance cameras actually reduce crime?

Our Take

Credit where it's due: the Atlanta Journal-Constitution did the unglamorous work of digging through decades of academic research instead of just repeating a police chief's press release. Their finding — that surveillance camera effectiveness is wildly inconsistent depending on crime type and deployment — is exactly what criminologists have been saying for years while cities quietly sign nine-figure contracts with Flock Safety and call it 'proven technology.'

This matters because the entire sales pitch for blanketing your town in ALPRs rests on a simple, repeated claim: cameras reduce crime, so give up a little privacy for safety. When that claim turns out to be 'it depends, and often not much,' the whole cost-benefit calculation falls apart. Meanwhile, the data these cameras hoover up — your travel patterns, your routines, who you park next to — doesn't get walked back once a study shows mixed results. The surveillance infrastructure stays long after the crime-reduction promise gets quietly downgraded to 'investigative tool.'

If your city council is being sold this same pitch with glossy stats and no peer review in sight, that's worth showing up with actual research in hand. Check the map to see what's already watching your neighborhood, and hit take action for tools to push back before the contract gets signed.