The rise of video surveillance in the United Kingdom, in the form of the public installation of closed circuit television (CCTV), has been seen by several scholars as a contributing factor to the increasing exclusion of unwanted categories of people from city centers, a development often referred to as the 'commercialization' or 'purification' of the city. Drawing from field observations over three years in control rooms in Oslo, Norway, this article discusses whether CCTV systems in Oslo contribute to a similar process of exclusion. To do so, I compare the open street video surveillance system with two other CCTV systems - a shopping mall and a major transport center. The introduction of open street CCTV in Oslo in 1999 did not create social exclusion, but recent developments show the possibility remains. Although drug addicts and young people were the primary targets of surveillance in all three sites studied, ejections varied considerably from site to site. The shopping mall system had a higher ejection rate than the open street system, and was therefore the system with the clearest exclusionary effects. Reasons for the different ejection rates are discussed, in particular the social structure of the site under surveillance and the organizational relationships of CCTV operators to the policing agents connected to the surveillance system.
This paper examines data from an observation study of four CCTV control rooms in Norway and Denmark. The paper asks whether issues other than privacy might be at stake when public spaces are placed under video surveillance. Starting with a discussion of what values public spaces produce for society and for citizens and then examining CCTV practices in terms of those values, we find that video surveillance might have both positive and negative effects on key 'products' of public spaces. We are especially concerned with potential effects on social cohesion. If CCTV encourages broad participation and interaction in public spaces, for instance by increasing citizens' sense of safety, then CCTV may enhance social cohesion. But the discriminatory practices we observed may have the opposite effect by excluding whole categories of the populace from public spaces, thus ghettoizing those spaces and hampering social interactions. Though tentative due to limited data, our analysis indicates that structural properties of CCTV operations may affect the extent of discriminatory practices that occur. We suggest that these properties may therefore present 'handles' by which CCTV practices can be regulated to avoid negative effects on social cohesion.
Hva slags blikk er det ulike profesjonsutøvere anlegger når de ser på verden? Hvordan formes og utvikles disse blikkene, og hvordan former disse blikkene deres profesjonsutøvelse? Artiklene i dette temanummeret tar utgangspunkt i ulike profesjonsutøvere som politi og laerere, og utforsker hvordan profesjonsutøvelse kan beskrives og forstås ved å ta utgangspunkt i aktørenes blikk, og hvordan disse blikkene både er formet av og former rammene aktørene virker innenfor, både de strukturelle, organisatoriske, kulturelle og sosiale.Hva vi ser, er formet av hva vi vet og hva vi tror (Berger, 1972). Vårt blikk rettes mot noen objekter og utelater andre; vi fokuserer på noe og utelukker noe annet. Dette er allmennmenneskelig, men samtidig noe vi sjelden reflekterer over. Det å se er alltid en selektiv handling, der det som tillegges verdi og betydning av betrakteren kommer i fokus mens alt det andre forblir i bakgrunnen.Det interessante med «blikk» som analytisk begrep for å forstå profesjonsutøvelse, er at det både er nokså åpent og samtidig spesifikt. Følgelig kan det forstås og anvendes for metodiske og analytiske formål på forskjellige måter. Blikk kan inspirere en til å tenke over det fellesmenneskelige grunnlaget for viten (Foucault, 2000), på samme måte som det kan
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.