CCTV has received a flourish of publicity as the new technological marvel, which quietly sits in town centres, and other places, watching criminal activities. Open street surveillance of CCTV has been explosive growth in the UK in the 1990s. Similar the growth period has been seen in Turkey in the first decade of the 21st century as MOBESE surveillance. But, the use of CCTV has made both some people feel safer, and some feel violated.
There are great deal of differences in policing systems between Turkey and the UK. There are differences as well as similarities between experiences of open street surveillance of CCTV between the two countries.
Keywords- CCTV, MOBESE, Open Street Surveillance, Policing, Crime Prevention
Transition from industrial society to information society, indicates a great historical transformation (Bensghir, 1996: 11; Balcı, 2003: 265). In this context, developments in information and communication technologies in the life of the state and society leads to rapid and radical changes occurred. Social structure has been affected by information technology. "The success of public organizations depends increasingly on how efficiently they utilize internal and external knowledge resources in adjusting to contextual changes"(Anttiroiko, 2002). This draws attention to the importance of strategic information management.
The police are the specialist carriers of the state's bedrock power: the monopoly of legitimate force. Police organizations have benefited effectively from developments in information technology. They are also needed information management. Closed circuit television (CCTV), called MOBESE (Mobile Electronic System Integration) in Turkey, has received a flourish of publicity as the new technological marvel, which quietly sits in town centres, and other places, watching criminal activities. Especially, open street surveillance of CCTV has been explosive growth in Turkey in recent years. On the other hand, the functions and failures of surveillance camera systems, and their threats to the human rights and freedoms do not attract much attention.
There is a wide range of historical, political, economic and social factors lying behind the differences in policing systems in different countries. In terms of their histories, their practices and procedures, there is great variety amongst police forces, but the main policing tasks such as crime prevention and detection are almost same in all the states. CCTV cameras help the police in different countries for their duties. However, they should be used with support of the public. CCTV was pioneered by the Americans during the Vietnam War, but open street surveillance of CCTV had been explosive growth in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1990s. MOBESE (CCTV) cameras became widespread in Turkey in the first decade of 2000s. In this study, in both countries, the common process of the CCTV cameras in the public places will be discussed. Differences and similarities between police forces will also taken into consideration. One project from the United Kingdom (Exeter) and one project from Turkey (Istanbul) will be handled. At the end, comparative analysis of the experiences of both countries will be done.
1. CCTV SURVEILLANCE
Closed circuit television (CCTV) is a private video system used to monitor a location visually for security or other purposes. Most CCTV systems include a charged couple device camera, a time- lapse recorder and a control unit. CCTV was pioneered by the Americans during the Vietnam War and adopted for police use in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Manwaring-White, 1983:90). In the United States many police forces set up 24-hour surveillance systems to watch city streets. Despite its introduction to the security marketplace in the 1960s CCTV really was not economical until the late 1970s (Geleri, 1996:24). During the last two decades, CCTV benefited from rapidly advancing technology and easier integration with computers and other system-enhancing products.
Closed circuit television (CCTV) has received a flourish of publicity as the new technological marvel, which quietly sits in town centres, and other places, watching anti-social or criminal activities. Especially, open street surveillance of CCTV has been explosive growth in the UK in the 1990s, helped by government grants. Similar period of the growth has been seen in Turkey in the first decade of the 21st century as MOBESE surveillance. But, the use of CCTV has made both some people feel safer, and some feel violated.
1.1 .Aims Of CCTV Surveillance
The prevention of crime and disorder through deterrence is a common goal of most CCTV systems and it is also assumed that CCTV will aid detection through its surveillance capability and opportunity. Claims are also made that CCTV provides public reassurance and therefore reduces fear of crime, in this way, in turn, the usage of public places increase (Benett and Gelshorpe, 1996). On the other hand, Tilley (1997) says that CCTV may reduce crime as people are deterred from visiting CCTV-covered areas, believing them to be too dangerous. In addition, CCTV is used as a site management tool and it may even indirectly increase trade and protect substantial investments (Roberts and Goulette, 1996; Brown, 1995).
CCTV surveillance may have a different impact within different environments and affect different crimes in different ways (Brown, 1995:9; Ditton and Short, 1999). Ditton and Short (1999) found different effects of CCTV in Airdrie and Glasgow. The review of CCTV evaluations indicate that property crime has been reduced in certain settings where CCTV has been installed, for example, a reduction in burglary, thefts of and from motor vehicles, and criminal damage in town centres.
The effect of cameras on personal crime, public order and fear of crime is less clear (Philips, 1999:141). Rather than deterring violence and public order incidents altogether, Brown (1995) argued that CCTV works to contain the seriousness of incidents by helping to ensure that the police or security staff are quickly deployed to the scene of incidents, thus minimising the amount of harm. Any information recorded by the system can also assist the police in investigating the incident.
A perennial problem in evaluating CCTV occurs when the original pre-installation crime rate is low, and this was the case in Kings Lynn and Glasgow. "CCTV was introduced into Glasgow's city centre at a point when recorded crime had been on the decline for at least two years. It is unclear why recorded crime rates oscillate over the long term. But, when they are on the rise, there is more inclination to experiment with ways of reversing this than when they are on the decline" (Ditton and Short, 1999: 216).
Brown (1995) report that, the effect of the cameras on some of property crimes may have faded over time to a certain extent. Both Tilley (1993) and Brown (1995: 65) have stressed the importance of continually demonstrating to offenders through publicity that the risk of apprehension with CCTV is high. This may be the only way to sustain any initial deterrent effects.
Crime displacement is taken into account in terms of CCTV evaluations. In the evaluations mentioned here there are examples of little or no displacement of crime. Alternatively, the opposite effect may occur where the benefits of CCTV are diffused into a wider area than that covered by the system. In Newcastle and Doncaster town centres, crime declined in the neighbouring areas that did not have CCTV surveillance (Philips, 1999: 142).
1.2.Public Attitudes Towards CCTV
In general, the public's attitude towards CCTV has been favourable in the UK. The survey conducted by Honess and Charman (1992) showed that over 85% of respondents said that they would welcome a CCTV system. However, very few respondents (around 8%) surveyed by Honess and Charman expressed worries. Studies have shown that offenders, too, are supportive of CCTV, perhaps because of their own vulnerability to personal victimisation (French, 1996; Short and Ditton, 1998).
In the survey of Cambridge residents, Bennett and Gelsthorpe (1996) found that 29% were very or fairly worried about civil liberties. Especially respondents mentioned their dislike of being watched, their fear of greater state control, the possible abuse of recorded information, and general erosion of civil liberties. Public support for CCTV is not necessarily robust, for example, opposition to CCTV led to a public demonstration against its use in Brighton (Davies, 1998).
The rise of CCTV surveillance easily evokes Orwellian concerns of "Big Brother." The term "Big Brother^', of course, refers to the government of Oceania, the setting of George Orwell's classic "1984". Orwell's bleak picture of life in the future and a growing antipathy toward what is perceived as government intrusion into citizens' private live have galvanised the anti-CCTV movement (Capar, 2000: 34; Çoban, 2007).
2.CCTV SURVEILLANCE IN PUBLIC PLACES IN THE UK
Policing in the UK
United Kingdom consists of Great Britain (involves England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. UK, governed by constitutional monarchy, is a country with a population of approximately 61 million. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are divided into sub-administrative units according to their own features. It can be said that adminitrative structure of the UK is based on local governments.
There is an interesting point that policing in the UK is based on a number of different systems: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. It is possible to say there are at least 52 different policing systems, one for each constabulary (Benyon et al., 1993).
The Metropolitan Police is one of the 43 constabularies of England and Wales. It is responsible for policing the capital of the UK, London, with the exception of the City of London, which for historical reasons has its own police force. There are 7 other metropolitan forces that police the largest conurbations in England and Wales (Tupman and Tupman, 1999:5). All other constabularies police areas are a mixture of urban and rural.
The 51 police forces in England, Wales and Scotland are each headed by a Chief Constable who is accountable to a Police Authority. The English and Welsh forces come under the governmental direction of the Home Office; the Scottish Office deals with Scotland. Prior to the Police Act 1964, there were over 100 constabularies, based on urban and rural areas. After 1964 the distinction between rural and urban policing was abolished as different constabularies were amalgamated into unitary territorial authorities based on the new local government boundaries. The chief constable became an independent figure responsible for day-to-day policing of the force area and responsible to both the Home Office and the Police Authority (Reiner, 1992; Bunyan, 1977).
In Scotland there are 8 constabularies corresponding to the 8 former regional governments of Scotland. In addition, there is also judicial accountability to the Procurator Fiscal for the conduct of criminal investigation (Tupman, 1998).
Northern Ireland has a single police service, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with a single Chief Constable. Because of the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland, since 1968, policing has taken on a paramilitary role. The police armed, their vehicles are armoured and they are relatively assisted on a permanent basis by the military (Tupman and Tupman, 1999). By contrast, the Channel Islands have an almost medieval system of policing similar to that existed in most of the UK before the creation of the modern police in 1829 (Bunyan, 1977). Furthermore, there are police services not covered by the Home Office such as the Royal Military Police, the British Transport Police (Benyon et al., 1993).
Background Of CCTV In Public Places
Closed circuit television (CCTV) is a private video system used to monitor a location visually for security or other purposes. Most CCTV systems include a charged couple device camera, a time- lapse recorder and a control unit. CCTV surveillance in public places has flourished in the last decade. The Home Office has actively promoted the use of CCTV. It has been a very attractive way of tackling crime problems with the advantage of financial support from central government (Capar, 2000: 16).
In the post-war period, in most industrial countries there has been a dramatic rise in recorded crime (Reiner, 1992:146). In the UK recorded crime reached an all time high in 1992. Crime and its prevention have been a rising public issue (Tupman, 2000). As a response Home Office encouraged the multi-agency approach to prevent crime (Home Office, 1993). Under these circumstances, as a crime prevention method, the 1990s have witnessed a truly dramatic expansion of CCTV in town centres. It is estimated that there were two local authorities with CCTV schemes in 1987 (Bulos and Sarno, 1994), 79 town centre schemes in 1994 (Home Office, 1994), and at least 440 schemes specifically in town centres by 1998 (Goodwin et al., 1998). It is not difficult to understand the underlying cause of this growth in CCTV use in the UK. As Philips (1999: 124) indicates, the Home Office made available £37 million between 1994 and 1997 to support over 550 schemes. The money was provided through CCTV challenge, a competitive bidding process that required local matched funding. Central government contributions thus levered a further substantial funding, primarily from local authorities and the private sector. The Home Office announced that a further £170 million is being made available by the government for 1999-2002 period (Home Office, 2000).
It is quite interesting that the Home Office guidelines which were issued when CCTV Challenge was launched, began by warning,
"It is essential at the outset to assess the crime and other problems to be addressed and to examine a range of responses, which may include CCTV. Avoid falling into the trap of thinking you should use CCTV just because it is available and because neighbouring towns seem to be planning to do so. You need to think through the way in which CCTV will help address your problems in your circumstances^Avoid unrealistic expectations. Don't assume that CCTV will by itself solve your problems. To be successful CCTV needs to be carefully planned, competently managed and generally introduced as part of a package of measures" (Home Office, 1994:9).
On the other hand, the rise in crime has meant that it has increasingly affected the lives of ordinary people, and this has helped to push crime up the political agenda. Traditionally the Conservatives were seen as tougher on law and order, but in the early 1990s the Labour opposition's approach changed, rivalling the increasingly hard-line policies and rhetoric to stress their toughness, emphasising such measures as harsher sentencing, the Labour approach was embodied in the slogan "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" (Moxon, 2000). As a result, the Crime and Disorder Act, which received Royal Assent in July 1998, is one of the most significant legislative changes to be made by the Labour Government. The act makes it a duty for local agencies to form local partnerships to improve community safety.
At the same time there is another important aspect of CCTV usage. The Home Office guidelines of CCTV initiative (Home Office 2000: 2) indicate that "CCTV must retain public confidence. To ensure CCTV is operated fairly and lawfully, successful bids must operate under detailed codes of practice to protect individual rights to privacy and adhere to the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. Well- managed CCTV projects should meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998".
As it was mentioned, policing in the UK based on local structures. However, Home Office has scientific research units in order to provide guidance for CCTV systems ( Aldridge, 1994; Wallace and Diffley, 1998; Brown, 1995). It is important to ensure compliance with evolving technology for the systems. It means that there is a serious R&D work to direct and support of the projects.
2.3.CCTV In Exeter City Centre
Exeter is a university and cathedral city as well as being the County seat of Devon. Being situated at the head of the Exe Estuary with 111.000 resident population and gateway to the West Country, it attracts a large number of tourists as well as a regional business centre.
It is understood that searching started with the aim of increasing the attraction of the city centre and strengthening the concept of security, as a result of the Exeter city centre starting to lose its attraction, the people feeling the concern of not being secure and the crime rates increasing (Capar, 2000: 19). It is seen that a co-operation between the public and private sector institutions was formed in accordance with this purpose. Surveys carried out in Exeter between 1994 and 1998 showed that public acceptance of CCTV were favourable in Exeter. Although people's feelings of safety have been decreasing slightly in the City Centre, there was some evidence that CCTV could effect this perception positively (Capar, 2000: 41).
Devon County Council first installed public CCTV in 1990 for the purpose of monitoring key traffic signal controlled junctions across the county. The CCTV system has been gradually expanded. In 1997 for the first time the Home Office CCTV Challenge bids were successful for Exeter, both with a County Council bid (11 cameras) and a City Council bid (4 cameras). These Bids included the City Centre, Park&Ride, ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) for Industrial Estates.
The bid for the City Centre CCTV surveillance system was submitted in March 1996 by the Exeter City Centre Partnership with the full support of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. The partnership comprised representatives from the City Centre Consortium, Exeter City Council, Devon County Council and core funders of the City Centre Manager post. As a rule, the chair of the partnership alternates between the private sector and the public sector. During the bid, a representative of the City Centre Consortium held the chair.
The bid was successful and the Home Office provided 50 % of the capital cost (£40.000) of the scheme. While the private sector's contribution was £20.000, Exeter City Council and Devon County Council provided the rest of the capital cost as well as undertaking the running costs of the system. Four CCTV cameras were installed in the High Street in the Exeter City centre in 1997. Devon County Council undertakes for paying the on-going maintenance cost and salaries and cost of related civilian operators who monitor the system. For the maintenance of the system Exeter City Council contribute £6.000 per year. In the same year, the Code of Practice was also developed and an Ethics Committee was formed to oversee the Exeter CCTV system (Capar, 2000: 18-21).
As general management arrangements the partnership planned to appoint a City Centre Manager to have day-to-day responsibility for the scheme, with Exeter City Council having overall responsibility for the management of the system. Monitoring reports were made to the City Centre Partnership on a regular basis (Capar, 2000: 21-22). In respect to these decisions the City Centre Manager was appointed in 1996, but, day-to-day responsibility for the scheme is undertaken by the Control Room Manager who works for Devon County Council (Capar, 2000: 22).
Monitoring is undertaken by Devon County Council with some assistance from the Police. Monitoring is in accordance with a Code of Practice and is under the control of Devon County Council. Under the supervision of the Control Room Manager the operators work on the shift system for monitoring cameras 24 hours a day. The working group meetings are held at the City Council's Civic Centre and the monitoring reports are disseminated regularly to representatives of the partnership.
It can be said that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which impose the partnership working strategy for crime control, has affected partnership activities positively. The Police appointed a CCTV liaison officer in April 1998. Although the Police supported the bid in 1996, they did not seem to be eager to join the partnership at that time (Capar, 2000: 22). Exeter Community Safety Strategy (19992000) indicates that the police have taken-place among the CCTV key players as well as the City Centre Manager. As a pre-existing partnership the CCTV scheme has placed itself in the priorities and objectives of the strategy. There is a general agreement that the CCTV Working Group has fostered valuable partnership between agencies and that the initiative has been of benefit to Exeter (Capar, 2000: 22).
Furthermore, in 1999, the bids on CCTV submitted by the Exeter Community Safety Partnership (Exeter City Council, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Devon County Council, North&East Devon Health Authority, Exeter Business Forum and Devon Probation Service) were a result of the 1998 Act. The 1999 bids consist of the extension of City Centre CCTV, mobile CCTV camera unit and flexible cell cameras for Exeter Central and West Exeter. Total capital cost of the three bids was £198.800,out of which £126.300 was awarded from the government CCTV Initiative (Capar, 2000: 22). This partnership can be seen as a practice of governance.
An evaluation research carried out about Exeter City Centre CCTV scheme in 2000 (Capar, 2000).
3.CCTV SURVEILLANCE IN TURKEY: MOBESE
Policing in Turkey
Turkey is a country consisting of 81 cities within a unitary structure with a population of 70 million on average as of 2008 and governed with parliamentary democracy. It can be said that Turkey has a centralised administrative structure.
In Turkey, there are police and gendarme corps as the law enforcement. It can be stated that the police generally serves in urban areas whereas the gendarme serves in rural areas. These organizations are structured centrally as General Directorate of Turkish National Police (EGM) and General Command of Gendarmerie. The highest level executive manager of these organizations is responsible to the Minister of Interior while the executives in cities and towns are responsible to the Governor and the District Governor for performing their duties. Also, they have responsibilities to the Public Prosecutors in terms of criminal investigations. On the other hand, there are also law enforcement organizations for specific services such as coast guarding within the assigned position of the Ministry of Interior, and Forest Enforcement and Customs Enforcement beyond its assigned position.
MOBESE Watching Out Public Places
MOBESE (Mobile Electronic System Integration) comes out as a system consisting of the integrated applications of all electronic and software productions necessary for urban security. MOBESE-İstanbul Project is regarded as the first in terms of the new security concept it reveals (lEM, 2007; Yıldırım et al., 2006: 134).
MOBESE Urban Information and Security system is designed as a medium and guide to conduct the civil, security and public order services from the point of both the civil governors and employees. One of the characteristics of this project is that the ideas related to the design and processes are completely authentic and belonging to the police (Çoban, 2005; Yıldırım et al., 2006). In the identification tags related to the MOBESE Project, it is defined as a modern urban information and security system which "appeared as a result of looking for a solution to enable our people to live in confidence and safety in the rapidly changing world and was decided to be applied in the cities where necessary and focuses on technology, democracy and human" (Çoban, 2005).
It is understood that it was first carried into execution on 10 April 2001 in Diyarbakır City by Head of Intelligence Department of Police with the support of the General Directorate (EGM) and it was put into use in Mersin, Ankara, İstanbul by 2005 as MOBESE. In addition, it is seen that İzmir and Antalya were also added to the cities where it is used (Çoban 2005). Even a simple search of the word "MOBESE" by a search engine on the internet would show that electronical monitoring systems are set up or are in the progress of being set up under the name of MOBESE with local fundings in many cities (like Balıkesir, İsparta) and provinces (like Akhisar, Ahlat) (Google 2007).
Under the light of İstanbul MOBESE project experiences, Çevik and Filiz (2008: 174-175) state that the coordination duty in the setting up work of the mobile applications was given to the EGM-Head of Information Department in 2005, MOBESE standarts were determined in 2006 and the cities were informed about the fact that the cities which had the methods and local fundings to be followed in this project were to be prioritized. Moreover, it is understood that Telecommunication Agency allocated MOBESE frequency in 2006 and the MOBESE Type Specifications was sent to all cities in 2007 (Çevik and Filiz 2008: 174-175).
In early 2008, the Minister of Interior indicated that it was aimed to establish MOBESE system in all the cities and in some towns of specific size by the end of the year, showing his support for MOBESE applications (Atalay, 2008: 17).
Interestingly, it is worth attention that although the camera monitoring systems have become widespread, the issue is not discussed by the public and the academic world is not interested in the subject. While generally favourable publications are seen about the capturings of the cameras in printed and mass media, they are the subject of few articles written by the national police members in magazines for promotion. In these articles, the impression that the MOBESE Project is seen as a "source of pride" is observed (Çapar 2008). On the other hand, the fact that no public opinion research has been carried out to evaluate the attitude of the society towards MOBESE systems and camera monitoring is worth attention. Additionally, although MOBESE applications tend to become widespread rapidly across Turkey, there is no information about any scientific "evaluation research" discussing the effects and results of these applications.
3.3. Istanbul MOBESE Scheme
Istanbul is the biggest city of Turkey with 12.5 million populations. It is also the most crowded city in the country. It has been the capital of three great empires: The Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman.
It is pointed out that İstanbul MOBESE has a special place with its integrated structure. It is stated that MOBESE as "Urban Information and Security System" which became operational with the support of İstanbul Governorship (from the budget of Provincial special Administration) within the body of İstanbul Police Headquarter (IEM) is integrated with 12 different systems and softwares including the camera monitoring system. The objectives of this system are listed as improving the current civil services, facilitating the management function, regulating the mukhtar services and reducing the crime rate (IEM, 2007).
The Command and Control Centre of MOBESE in which any kind of information which may be necessary during the management of Istanbul is collected, has been formed as the control and management system the security services are managed and directed in ordinary and extraordinary situations. The screens monitored with the cameras placed in the keypoints of the city can be viewed on giant screens. The above-mentioned system has the features practicable also in situations like social events, fire, health, natural disasters (IEM 2007).
Regional Monitoring System consists of monitoring with the cameras placed in the locations where people are present in great numbers and which are known as taxiways and continuous transferring and recording of these views to the centre. These scenes are recorded for a period of seven days and by the end of this period, new scenes are recorded automatically replacing the old ones. The number of cameras in use for this purpose in Istanbul is reported to be 570 (IEM 2007). It is pointed out that the infrastructure of Turkish Telecommunication Corporation was used for the data transfer of this system, but this increased the management costs. It is also stated that the system cannot be extended for this cost burden (AREM, 2007).
On the other hand, one of the important modules of the MOBESE Istanbul project is the District Command Centres. The information coming from the regions are first gathered in these centres which are each small prototypes of the Command and Control Centre. The information processed in the database is transferred to the Main Command and Control Centre afterwards (iEM, 2007).
As it is understood from this information, Governorship provided fund for the establishment of this system in Istanbul. However, the management of the system is fully under the responsibility of the Headquarter of Istanbul Police (IEM). Naturally, the personnel on duty in command and control centres for the management and watching of the system consist of personnel of the police. On the other hand, it is seen that especially the important information coming from these cameras are recorded after passing through a two-stage system within the body of this formation. Questions on issues such as the important information being only under the possession of the police, how long they will be stored in what conditions, to whom they are accessible, in what procedures they can be evaluated as evidence in the court appear at this point.
The declaration of EGM regarding that a study is being carried out on the legal and technical infrastructure of MOBESE, the camera monitoring system, has brought up the importance of the issues above to the agenda (Turk.net, 2006). In order to prevent the imputations and connotations regarding the camera monitoring systems, particularly "Big Brother", providing guarantees related to preserving the basic rights and independencies and to the confidentiality of privacy appears as a prerequisite. In addition, it is of great importance to generate the legal substructure related to using the scenes obtained in legal processes. On the other hand, it is necessary to guide the development of camera monitoring systems in central context and to deal with the issue with a continuous R&D approach to keep its compliance with especially technical developments at the highest level. It is clear that there is a technical team in the Data Processing Department of EGM (Çevik and Filiz, 2008: 174175), but there is no information stating that a multi-dimensional scientific support is given to this team.
On the other hand, there isn't a resource indicating that a scientific "evaluation research" analysing the effects and results of Istanbul MOBESE implementations, as the other implementations in Turkey, has been carried out (Çapar, 2008). In this context, it is necessary to design and implement the camera monitoring systems with a model in accordance with the country's legal, social and cultural structure. Considering the new evolutions of the Ministry of Interior regarding the Community- Supported Safety Services, it appears to be a modern security concept to take a society-supported and multi-institutional concept as the basis instead of leaving to fight against crime to only the police (Icisleri Bakanligi, 2003).
4. BRITISH AND TURKISH EXPERIENCES IN COMPARATIVE ASPECT
As a reflection of the fact that the country governing is local-based in UK, it is seen that 52 separate police organizations are structured as local-based. However, since there isn't a structure in the style of a central "general directorate", it is possible to mention 52 different police structuring. Additionally, except for the police, there isn't another law-enforcement structure such as gendarmerie.
In Turkey, the law-enforcement forces are organized as central as well, with the effect of the country governing being central. Moreover, unlike UK, the police and gendarmerie have taken on the task of law-enforcement.
Monitoring the avenues and streets with the aim of security by using closed circuit television systems can be defined as the attempt to prevent crime in the 20th century in UK. Against the increase in crime rates, "cooperation" of public and civil society at local level has been encouraged towards preventing crime. It is seen that these systems rapidly spread during the 1990s with the serious technical and financial support from the Home Office. However, it has been ensured that in establishing and conducting the projects and in activating the local funds, all the other partners have truly been "partners" besides the police. On the other hand, it is possible that the scientific research units in the Home Office produce information regarding the improvement of these systems and act as a guide for the projects. Also, the researches to evaluate the public's attitude towards CCTV surveillance and evaluating the effects of the present projects and the interest of the academic world in the issue caused a considerable amount of literature to be created.
As for Turkey, the period when monitoring with camera started to become widespread in the first decade of 2000s, which is 10 years later compared to UK. It is understood that the system, first implemented in Diyarbakir by the department of EGM, was improved and activated as "Istanbul MOBESE" and that the standards were formed with the experiences gained. At the beginning, there wasn't any direct financial support from the Ministry of Interior for the implementation. The financial support of Istanbul Governorship from the Provincial Special Administration budget for İstanbul MOBESE is worth attention. At the beginning of 2008, the Minister of Interior declared the target to establish MOBESE systems in all the cities and big towns by the end of the year. In the meantime, it was announced by the ministry that the projects whose funds are provided by local dynamics would be prioritised. However, it must be considered that monitoring with camera systems have started to be implemented in some cities and towns by using local funds before and during these developments and beyond the "official aspect". In addition to this, finding a local financial support doesn't mean a "partnership and cooperation", like the UK example, and the operation of the projects are left to the police only. On the other hand, the related department of EGM has formed technical standards for MOBESE systems and developed type Specifications, but due to the fact that no researches evaluating the public's attitude towards surveillance of cameras and the effects of the projects being implemented have been carried out and since the academic world's attention couldn't be drawn on the issue, we feel the lack of background information and literature in Turkish.
It is worth attention that the legal background is generated as general in UK. Precautions such as, the projects being in accordance with the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act, having a detailed regulation regarding the preservation of rights and independencies and private lives of people and being conducted under the supervision of ethical committees, were taken. On the other hand, it is seen that methods and rules have been developed in order to keep the data obtained and use them in legal procedures. Also, it is observed that "scientific research units" acts as a guide technically for monitoring with camera systems with the aim of providing compliance with the developing technology and keeping the success of the systems at the highest level.
Even though MOBESE is stated to be a democracy and human oriented study (Çoban, 2005), it is possible to discuss the lack of legal regulations which can eliminate the concerns about human rights and preservation of privacy. There isn't a law about protection of data in Turkey. Moreover, no applications have been observed which aim at having a regulation for each project to preserve human rights and independencies and private life, and forming ethical committees. However, it is seen that the "interesting" scenes obtained by MOBESE cameras could easily take place in written and visual media. Also, it is possible to mention the insufficiency of the regulations related to using the data obtained in legal procedures as evidence.
It is clearly understood that making a detailed plan to determine under which conditions and in which process the camera monitoring system can be successful, managing the system professionally and making it a part of the general anti-crime programme are of great importance in the UK, because there are findings of the evaluation studies related to which crimes the cameras are influential on. In addition, the public's opinion about crime and cameras are taken into consideration with the help of various public opinion surveys carried out before and after the installation of cameras. Moreover, in the scientific studies carried out after the police management stated that cameras "decreased the crime rate considerably", different real rates were obtained (Capar, 2000).
It is realized that no opinion has been formed in Turkey regarding under which conditions and in which mechanism cameras could be successful. It is observed that projects which are only in accordance with the technical standards and type specifications have been formed and implemented. Under these circumstances, there is a possibility of missing out the "contingency" aspect. In that case, it is regarded that there is a problem with the detailed planning and professional management of the projects. On the other hand, the lack of scientific researches dealing with the subject from different aspects prevents to form background knowledge about under which conditions and on which type of crimes and at what rate the camera monitoring system is effective.
When the objectives of installing camera monitoring systems are considered, a narrower scope is recognized in the UK, which are the objectives such as preventing crime, enabling to clarify the crimes and increasing the feeling of safety of the community.
As for Turkey, broad objectives are in question since the project is considered to be broader. For example, the objective of Istanbul MOBESE have been determined as improving the current public services, making the management function easier, regulating the work of mukhtar and decreasing the number of crime (IEM, 2007). While it is realized that the objectives are rather general and abstract, it is also understood that only the issue of decreasing the "numbers" is considered about crime.
In the application in Exeter about the "control centre" of CCTV, it is seen that there is a "private control room" and that the monitoring and recording operations are carried out by the civilian personnel. It is worth attention that this control room works in association with the "control room" of the police, and that the employees are in close relations with the "police liaison officer".
It is clearly understood that there isn't a separate control room in Istanbul example, the police take place inside the "command control centre", and also in towns the police are in control centres as well. Thus, it is seen that the system is entirely under the control of the police and the monitoring and recording operations are performed by the police.
In the UK, it is recognized that the police is not left alone in fighting against crime, by taking particularly the "community safety" approach as the basis. A legal regulation has also been performed on this issue. The fact that comprehensive programs have been prepared by the related local administrations, co-operations of businessmen, partnerships consisting of members such as craftsmen unions and that CCTV systems also take place among these, is a remarkable point. As a result, we come across a system in which partners who take place in camera monitoring projects act really in cooperation about the costs, progress, review and reaching the targets. This can be evaluated as an approach which both increases the number of actors fighting against crime and also decreases the concerns about preserving the human rights and private life. This application also provides an image in accordance with "governance" approach.
In the MOBESE applications in Turkey, it is observed that the police are left alone. Although the Ministry of Interior has an approach of having the police supported by the community and various applications of this approach are seen in several cities, there isn't a multi-institutional application model which is based on "partnership" concept regarding MOBESE issue. Even though the funds are provided by the Governorships (from Provincial Special Administrations) to apply the projects, like it is in Istanbul, the police are still left alone in the process. However, even the police express that "fighting against crime is not only the job of the police" (Heper, 2007).
CCTV has been one of the essential aids for the police in providing security on the streets in recent years, by benefiting from the developments in information technology. However, camera monitoring systems reveal a characteristic which must be considered not only with its information technology aspect, but also with its different aspects such as the legal, social and economic aspects. The background knowledge of under which conditions and in which mechanism the camera monitoring system could be successful has a vital importance in the installation and application of such systems. Otherwise, under the effect of promotions done in favour of camera monitoring, we can easily be mistaken that cameras are "magical sticks". In fact, the cameras watching over the avenues and streets are not "magical sticks" on their own.
CCTV surveillance became widespread in 1990s in the UK with the considerable support of the Home Office. It is understood that in order to enable a CCTV project to be successful, a special attention has been paid on "careful planning, professional management and making it a part of the general anti-crime program" and on the fact that it is appropriate to that site. Additionally, it is seen that the legal structure taking the human rights and privacy under protection has been formed with the aim of ensuring that these systems are operated within the legal frame. It is worth mentioning that these systems have been continuously supported by scientific studies with the aim of keeping their effectiveness in fighting against crime at the highest level.
It is observed that the camera monitoring systems in Turkey have been spreading rapidly during 2000s and that it has received the support of the Ministry of Interior. In addition, it is possible to provide technical support to some extent, but the deficiency in the legal substructure attracts attention. On the other hand, similar to the example of UK, camera monitoring system mustn't be considered as a duty carried out only by the police. The concept of "fighting against crime is not only the job of police" has been gaining importance in Turkey as well. Therefore, a concept of cooperation between the related public and civilian institutions is necessary in order to reveal a social cooperation approach.
Aldridge, J. 1994. CCTV Operational Requirements Manual. Police Scientific Development Branch. No. 17/94. London: Home Office. Anttiroiko, A.V. 2002. Strategic knowledge management in local government. In A. Grönlund, (ed.),
Eloctronic Government: Design, Applications and Management. London: idea Group Publishing.
AREM, 2007. Terörle Mücadele Araştırması Raporu (Unpublished).
Atalay, B. 2008. İçişleri Bakanı Sayın Beşir Atalay'ın 17 Ocak 2008 tarihinde il valileri toplantısının açılışında yaptıkları konuşma. Türk İdare Dergisi, Mart 2008, Sayı. 548: 13-22.
Balcı, A. 2003. E-devlet: kamu yönetiminde yeni perspektifler, fırsatlar ve zorluklar.
In A. Balcı et al. (eds.), Kamu Yönetiminde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Seçkin.
Benett, T. and L. Geltshorpe. 1996. Public attitudes towards CCTV in public places. Studies on Crime and Prevention. 5/1: 72-90.
Bensghir, T. K. 1996. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Örgütsel Değişim. Ankara: TODAİE.
Benyon, J. et al. 1993. Police Cooperation İn Europe: An Investigation. Leicester: CSPO.
Brown, B. 1995. CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies. Police Research Group Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper. No. 68. London: Home Office.
Bulos, M. ve C. Sarno. 1994. Closed Circuit Television and Local Authority Initiatives: The First National Survey. London: South Bank University.
Bunyan, T. 1977. The History and Practice of the Political Police in Britain. London: Quartet Books.
Capar, S. 2000. Evaluation of Exeter City Centre CCTV. M.A Dissertation. Exeter University (Unpublished).
Çapar, S. 2008. "MOBESE kameraları "sihirli değnek" midir?". Türk İdare Dergisi, Mart 2008, 548: 185-201.
Çevik, H. and O. Filiz. 2008. Polis teşkilatında bilgi yönetimi. Türk İdare Dergisi, Mart 2008, 548: 165-184.
Çoban, E. 2005. Ülkemizin yeni bilgi ve güvenlik konsepti MOBESE. Polis Dergisi, 45: 21-28
Davies, S. 1998. CCTV: a new battleground for privacy. In C. Norris et al. (eds.),
Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Ditton, J. and E. Short.1999. Yes it works, no, it doesn't: comparing the effects of open- street CCTV in two adjacent Scottish town centres. In K. Painter and N. Tilley (eds.), Surveillance of Public Space: An Evaluation of CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, (Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 10). New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Exeter Community Safety Strategy 1999-2000. 1999. Exeter: Exeter Community Safety Partnership.
French, P. 1996, "Inside the Offender's Mind", CCTV Today, 3/3: 16-19.
Heper, D. 2007. Göç'ü önle suç'u önle. Milliyet Gazetesi. 05.07.2007.
Home Office.1993. "A practical Guide to Crime Prevention for Local Partnerships. London: Home Office.
Home Office. 1994. CCTV: Looking Out for You. London: Home Office.
Phillips, C. 1999. A review of CCTV evaluations: crime reduction effects and attitudes towards its use. In K. Painter and N. Tilley (eds.), Surveillance of Public Space: An Evaluation of CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, (Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 10). New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Reiner, R. 1992. The Politics of Police (2nd edition). Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf.
Roberts, A. and S. Goulette. 1996. CCTV surveillance: the local authority's role-a review current practice. Proceeding of the Institute of Engineers-Municipal Engineers, 115/2: 61-57.
Short, E. ve J. Ditton. 1996. Does Closed Circuit Television Prevent Crime? An Evaluation of the
Use of CCTYV Surveillance in Airdrie Town Centre. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Unit.
Short, E. and J. Ditton. 1998. Seen and now heard: talking to the targets of open street CCTV. British Journal of Criminology, 38/3: 404-429.
Tilley, N. 1993. Understanding Car Parks, Crime and CCTV. Evaluation Lessons From Safer Cities. Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper. No: 42. London: Home Office.
Tilley, N. 1997. Whys and wherefores in evaluating the effectiveness of CCTV. International Journal of Risk Security and Crime Prevention, 2/3: 175-185.
Tupman, B. ve A. Tupman. 1999. Policing in Europe. Exeter: Intellect.
Tupman, W.A. 1998. It's not quite allright, Jack. European Journal of Police and Security Technology, January, 4-6.
Tupman, W.A. 2000. Electronic Surveillance and Allied New Technologies, Criminal Justice and
Human Rights. University of Exeter (unpublished).
Turk.net, 2006. "MOBESE". http://www.turk.internet.com (21.04.2006)
Wallace, E. ve C. Diffley 1998. CCTV Making It Work. Police Scientific Development Branch, No. 14/98. London: Home Office.
Yıldırım, H. et al. 2006. E-Devlet Başa. Ankara: İmyay Yayıncılık.
Yayınlandı: Çapar, S. (2009) "Open Street Surveillance in The Uk And Turkey". E-transformation in Public Administration: From eGoverment to eGovernance, Ed.:T.K. Bensghir, Ankara: TODAİE.
T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Araştırma ve Etütler Merkezi Sakarya Mahallesi Hacı Ayvaz Sokak No: 9 Altındağ- Ankara Telefon: (0312) 397 56 46 Faks: (0312) 397 08 03 firstname.lastname@example.org