Since the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 (when several witnesses did not help the victim - Ed.), It has been widely believed in science that witnesses to an attack are unlikely to come to the victim's aid if the attack goes on in front of many people, and vice versa - the fewer people watching the attack, the more likely it is that one of them will intervene. But ironically, this assumption is starting to seem controversial in 2020, and it's all because scientists have gained access to CCTV cameras around the world.
In modern cities, not a single person or section of the sidewalk is left unattended. CCTV cameras dot the cityscape, for example, in London there is one camera for every fourteen people and the police are rapidly gaining muscle in CCTV: the city is monitored by both drones and police body cameras.
Tony Porter, commissioner in charge of CCTV cameras in the UK, warns that the habit of governments constantly monitoring people will lead to both predictable and unpredictable invasions of privacy. But the hundreds of downsides to doing this have at least one plus: CCTV cameras can help test scientists' basic theories about human behavior and drive research forward.
There are some questions that behavioral scientists would really like to answer, but for these questions traditional data collection methods are ineffective. For example: if you are attacked in a public place, how likely is a stranger to come to your aid? And if you yourself are helping someone in such a situation, what is the likelihood that you will get hurt? Simulated situations and questionnaires are not the best data sources for finding answers to these questions, much worse than real data.
Recently, a group of British and Danish researchers took an important step towards answering these questions with the publication of a study where scientists used data from multiple CCTV cameras in cities in England, Denmark and South Africa. They determined that in nine out of ten cases, the witness of the attack intervenes to stop the attack, and the level of intervention is comparable across cultures.
As a result, scientists have a strong argument against the "bystander effect" that has emerged in the scientific literature as a result of the research sparked by the Kitty Genovese case. In many of those studies, scientists used supervised simulations, interviews, questionnaires, and other traditional data collection methods.
The new study concluded that while every single person in a crowd may feel a “bystander effect” if they watch an attack, the more people there are, the more likely they are to intervene. The presence of others seems to provide support for the people who are about to thwart the attacker.
“There are many things that can be learned with video, and I think few researchers are aware of the possibility of using comprehensive video for almost all kinds of interactions,” says Lasse Liebst, study co-author and sociologist at the University of Copenhagen. "There is great potential here, but unfortunately it is not being used."
“This is not an argument for increasing surveillance,” he adds.
“But this technology exists now. So can it benefit the general public? I think it is important that we, as researchers, ask ourselves, how can we help the public regain control of this technology? "
According to experts, video surveillance in behavioral science has so far been used to a rather limited extent, most often used by scientists from Europe and Australia. Researchers must have access to a database of governments and private companies, but this process can be complicated by bureaucracy and thus limit research areas. For example, the police may not be very willing to hand over a database of surveillance cameras to scientists so that they can study how officers respond to witness interference.
Camille Nebeker, director of the ReCODE Health program at the University of California, San Diego, which studies ethical practices in digital medical research, video footage is a potential goldmine for behavioral medicine researchers where exercise and eating habits are important, and where scientists often run into problems when obtaining data from unreliable sources.
In 2016, Nebeker found more than 30 behavioral studies using SenseCam wearable cameras (55 as of January 15, 2020 - Vice) , most of the participants who reported positive experiences of participating in such studies, but almost a third of people said they felt uncomfortable with camera, especially in the presence of others.
Lasse Liebst and his colleagues have gone to great lengths to anonymize the data obtained from the videos they used in their research, as well as to secure the data that was collected before the entry into force of the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The scientist told Vice that his team's methods are likely to comply with the stricter GDPR privacy rules.
Liebst hopes the results of his current and next research will lead to more public education and policy changes that make urban spaces safer.
Some privacy advocates, however, are concerned that researchers' altruistic intentions will eventually be used to strengthen surveillance.
“This is a tricky question,” says Cooper Quintin, senior technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), adding that he will not necessarily support rules restricting researchers' access to video surveillance.
“I think we have to be very careful when we benefit from the surveillance apparatus. Every time we normalize something and benefit from it, this thing takes root more and more in our life, little by little, every day. By using this data, you support the collection."
In modern cities, not a single person or section of the sidewalk is left unattended. CCTV cameras dot the cityscape, for example, in London there is one camera for every fourteen people and the police are rapidly gaining muscle in CCTV: the city is monitored by both drones and police body cameras.
Tony Porter, commissioner in charge of CCTV cameras in the UK, warns that the habit of governments constantly monitoring people will lead to both predictable and unpredictable invasions of privacy. But the hundreds of downsides to doing this have at least one plus: CCTV cameras can help test scientists' basic theories about human behavior and drive research forward.
There are some questions that behavioral scientists would really like to answer, but for these questions traditional data collection methods are ineffective. For example: if you are attacked in a public place, how likely is a stranger to come to your aid? And if you yourself are helping someone in such a situation, what is the likelihood that you will get hurt? Simulated situations and questionnaires are not the best data sources for finding answers to these questions, much worse than real data.
Recently, a group of British and Danish researchers took an important step towards answering these questions with the publication of a study where scientists used data from multiple CCTV cameras in cities in England, Denmark and South Africa. They determined that in nine out of ten cases, the witness of the attack intervenes to stop the attack, and the level of intervention is comparable across cultures.
As a result, scientists have a strong argument against the "bystander effect" that has emerged in the scientific literature as a result of the research sparked by the Kitty Genovese case. In many of those studies, scientists used supervised simulations, interviews, questionnaires, and other traditional data collection methods.
The new study concluded that while every single person in a crowd may feel a “bystander effect” if they watch an attack, the more people there are, the more likely they are to intervene. The presence of others seems to provide support for the people who are about to thwart the attacker.
“There are many things that can be learned with video, and I think few researchers are aware of the possibility of using comprehensive video for almost all kinds of interactions,” says Lasse Liebst, study co-author and sociologist at the University of Copenhagen. "There is great potential here, but unfortunately it is not being used."
“This is not an argument for increasing surveillance,” he adds.
“But this technology exists now. So can it benefit the general public? I think it is important that we, as researchers, ask ourselves, how can we help the public regain control of this technology? "
According to experts, video surveillance in behavioral science has so far been used to a rather limited extent, most often used by scientists from Europe and Australia. Researchers must have access to a database of governments and private companies, but this process can be complicated by bureaucracy and thus limit research areas. For example, the police may not be very willing to hand over a database of surveillance cameras to scientists so that they can study how officers respond to witness interference.
Camille Nebeker, director of the ReCODE Health program at the University of California, San Diego, which studies ethical practices in digital medical research, video footage is a potential goldmine for behavioral medicine researchers where exercise and eating habits are important, and where scientists often run into problems when obtaining data from unreliable sources.
In 2016, Nebeker found more than 30 behavioral studies using SenseCam wearable cameras (55 as of January 15, 2020 - Vice) , most of the participants who reported positive experiences of participating in such studies, but almost a third of people said they felt uncomfortable with camera, especially in the presence of others.
Lasse Liebst and his colleagues have gone to great lengths to anonymize the data obtained from the videos they used in their research, as well as to secure the data that was collected before the entry into force of the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The scientist told Vice that his team's methods are likely to comply with the stricter GDPR privacy rules.
Liebst hopes the results of his current and next research will lead to more public education and policy changes that make urban spaces safer.
Some privacy advocates, however, are concerned that researchers' altruistic intentions will eventually be used to strengthen surveillance.
“This is a tricky question,” says Cooper Quintin, senior technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), adding that he will not necessarily support rules restricting researchers' access to video surveillance.
“I think we have to be very careful when we benefit from the surveillance apparatus. Every time we normalize something and benefit from it, this thing takes root more and more in our life, little by little, every day. By using this data, you support the collection."
