After the many incidents that I’ve seen first-hand or know about second-hand and the lack of an effective response by those whose job it is supposed to be to safeguard security in public places, large shopping centres, workplaces and on public transport, I think those shiny domes that we now see everywhere whenever we look up are mostly there as a deterrent to people with evil designs, to give the public a false sense of security and to provide recorded forensic evidence for use by police after some major crime had happened. In my experience, it is naive to expect that CCTV recordings will be useful, available or accessible in investigating a theft or minor crime against a member of the public, and I also think it naive to expect that any particular CCTV is being capably monitored by anyone, let alone a person with certified face or visual recognition ability such as a super-recognizer. In my experience, even though many workplaces can be assumed to have at least cameras installed for security, it is naive to expect that they will be monitored or recordings checked to guard the safety of employees. Members of the public, shoppers, passengers, employees and victims of crime or workplace bullying don’t own or control those cameras and as far as I know have no legal right to access any recordings, even if those are recordings involving themselves. They aren’t my cameras and they aren’t your cameras. Don’t believe the hype.
Another thing worth mentioning – those “gated” private communities for retirees and the elderly – if there is no employed security guard or security contractor or other person appointed with an explicit responsibility for security, or there is one and she or he is on holiday, or on a RDO, or is sick and has no replacement, or is not rostered on shift, or is busy doing other duties or is patrolling another site, what do you think is likely to happen should there be a threat to security? A theoretical security officer can’t intervene in an actual crime.