Persecution or protection? Understanding the differential public response to two road-based surveillance systems
| Author | Helen Wells,Alina Haines |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895811431848 |
| Published date | 01 July 2012 |
| Date | 01 July 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Themed Section: Surveillance, technology and the everyday |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
12(3) 257 –273
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895811431848
crj.sagepub.com
Persecution or protection?
Understanding the differential
public response to two road-
based surveillance systems
Alina Haines
University of Liverpool, UK
Helen Wells
Keele University, UK
Abstract
Over the past decade, drivers in the UK have become subject to increasing amounts of
surveillance as they go about their daily activities. Both speed cameras and Automatic Number
Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems watch over ever-expanding portions of the road network with
a view to the identification of motor vehicles being used in an illegal manner, potentially leading to
the offending individual being traced and punished and the protection of ‘law-abiding’ road users.
Both technologies also generate large volumes of data which could be used to increase the State’s
knowledge about our movements. As such, the two systems have many similarities. However, the
public reception of the two technologies has shown marked differences. This article combines the
findings of two separate research projects, one of which focused on speed cameras and the other
on ANPR, but both of which included an exploration of the surveillance experience of UK drivers.
The findings suggest that, while both forms of surveillance have their supporters and opponents,
the ways in which these positions are justified show some significant difference. It is proposed
that this can be explained in terms of differences in the ‘criminal’ nature of the populations who
constitute their respective behavioural foci, along with strategies adopted in the marketing of the
two systems. Drivers, as a result, occupy a complex role which veers between the dominance of
the identities of offender and victim, alternatively protected by and problematized by state
surveillance of their activities which increasingly intrudes into their lives.
Corresponding author:
Alina Haines, University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, Health and Community
Care Research Unit (HaCCRU), Thompson Yates Building, Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, LG69
3GB, UK
Email: a.haines@liv.ac.uk
431848CRJ12310.1177/1748895811431848Haines and WellsCriminology & Criminal Justice
2011
Article
258 Criminology & Criminal Justice 12(3)
Keywords
ANPR, legitimacy, public perceptions, reaction, speed cameras, surveillance
Introduction
As argued in the editorial note of this issue, ‘everyday’ surveillance practices may repre-
sent a paradox of protection and control, inviting perceptions of both benign and malign
attention and an implicitly ambivalent response from those under the surveillance gaze.
This article seeks to explore some of the issues that make the balance tilt in favour of
either prosecution or persecution narratives.
Both the increasing use of technology in roads policing contexts, and the importance
of the roads policing context itself have been noted in recent years, alongside the per-
ceived neglect of these topics by criminology (Corbett, 2008a; PACTS, 2005). While
roads policing may be accurately described as the public face of policing (Corbett,
2008b: 131), that public face is increasingly not a human one but the automated eye of
the surveillance camera.
Both speed cameras and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems
watch over ever-expanding portions of the road network with a view to the identification
of motor vehicles being used in an illegal manner, potentially leading to the offending
individual being traced and punished. In excess of 12 million prosecutions for speeding
have resulted from the spread of speed cameras over the past 10 years (Povey et al.,
2011: 63) while the introduction of ANPR claims to have resulted in a significant
increase in the number of arrests and offences brought to justice, particularly with
regards to theft of motor vehicles and vehicle-related document offences (having no
tax, MOT, insurance, etc.) (Home Office, 2004, 2006, 2007). Consequently it seems fair
to claim that it is likely that every one of the UK’s drivers will have encountered traffic
policing of this form at some point in their driving career, whether their behaviour has
activated the technology or not.
Both technologies generate large volumes of data which could be used to increase
the State’s knowledge about our movements. Through the use of ANPR cameras and
speed cameras, the UK’s drivers are surveilled to an unprecedented degree by technolo-
gies which are marketed as being both for their protection and for the protection of
others from their activities. Both systems can also be seen as operating on the principles
of pre-crime as identified by Zedner (2007), and clearly demonstrate that the minimiza-
tion of risk on the roads is predicated upon a ‘future-oriented and pre-emptive risk-
management approach’ (Corbett, 2008a: 12). As such, the two systems have many
similarities, though their reception by the motoring and wider public shows significant
differences (Rowe, 2008: 210) and they are supported by significantly and, we will
argue, strategically different marketing strategies.
The purpose of this article is to explore some of the similarities and differences that
exist in relation to the two technologies and their public image, drawing on data from two
separate empirical research projects. Themes of (perceived) effectiveness, (perceived)
appropriateness, marketing and deployment practice have emerged and, to us, appear to
be the most helpful in explaining the differential public reaction to the two technologies
and their associated surveillance experience. First, we provide a brief background in
To continue reading
Request your trial