High-tech crime-fighting toots

A.  Crime-fighting technology is getting more sophisticated and rightly so. The police need
to be equipped for the 21st century. In Britain we've already got the world's biggest DNA
database. By next year the state will have access to the genetic data of 4.25m people: one
British-based person in 14. Hundreds of thousands of those on the database will never have
been charged with a crime.
B.  Britain is also reported to have more than £4 million CCTV (closed circuit television)
cameras. There is a continuing debate about the effectiveness of CCTV. Some evidence
suggests that it is helpful in reducing shoplifting and car crime. It has also been used to
successfully identify terrorists and murderers. However, many claim that better lighting is
just as effective to prevent crime and that cameras could displace crime. An internal police
report said that only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras in London in 2007. In
short, there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of cameras, so it is likely that the
debate will continue.
C.  Professor Mike Press, who has spent the past decade studying how design can contribute
to crime reduction, said that, in order for CCTV to have any effect, it must be used in a
targeted way. For example, a scheme in Manchester records every licence plate at the
entrance of shopping complex and alerts police when one is found to belong to an untaxed or
stolen car. This is an effective example of monitoring, he said. Most schemes that simply
record city centres continually - often not being watched - do not produce results. CCTV can
also have the opposite effect of that intended, by giving citizens a false sense of security and
encouraging them to be careless with property and personal safety. Professor Press said: 'All
the evidence suggests that CCTV alone makes no positive impact on crime reduction and
prevention at all. The weight of evidence would suggest the investment is more or less a
waste of money unless you have lots of other things in place.' He believes that much of the
increase is driven by the marketing efforts of security companies who promote the crime-
reducing benefits of their products. He described it as a 'lazy approach to crime prevention'
and said that authorities should instead be focusing on how to alter the environment to reduce
crime.
D.  But in reality, this is not what is happening. Instead, police are considering using more
technology. Police forces have recently begun experimenting with cameras in their helmets.
The footage wilt be stored on police computers, along with the footage from thousands of
CCTV cameras and millions of pictures from numberplate recognition cameras used
increasingly to check up on motorists.
E.  And now another type of technology is being introduced. It's called the Microdrone and
it's a toy-sized remote-control craft that hovers above streets or crowds to film what's going
on beneath. The Microdrone has already been used to monitor rock festivals, but its supplier
has also been in discussions to supply it to the Metropolitan Police, and Soca, the Serious
Organised Crime Agency. The drones are small enough to be unnoticed by people on the
ground when they are flying at 350ft. They contain high-resolution video surveillance
equipment and an infrared night vision capability, so even in darkness they give their
operators a bird's-eye view of locations while remaining virtually undetectable.
F.  The worrying thing is, who will get access to this technology? Merseyside police are
already employing two of the devices as part of a pilot scheme to watch football crowds and
city parks looking for antisocial behaviour. It is not just about crime detection: West
Midlands fire brigade is about to lease a drone, for example, to get a better view of fire and
flood scenes and aid rescue attempts; the Environment Agency is considering their use for
monitoring of illegal fly tipping and oil spills. The company that makes the drone says it has
no plans to License the equipment to individuals or private companies, which hopefully will
prevent private security firms from getting their hands on them. But what about local
authorities? In theory, this technology could be used against motorists. And where will the
surveillance society end? Already there are plans to introduce 'smart water' containing a
unique DNA code identifier that when sprayed on a suspect will cling to their clothes and
skin and allow officers to identify them later. As long as high-tech tools are being used in the
fight against crime and terrorism, fine. But if it's another weapon to be used to invade our
privacy then we don't want it.
List of Headings
I The spy in the sky
Ii The spread of technology
Iii The limitations of cameras
iv The cost of cameras
v Robots solving serious crimes
vi Lack of conclusive evidence
vii Cars and cameras
viii Advantages and disadvantages
ixA natural progression
x A feeling of safety
Paragraph B… Lack of conclusive evidence
2Paragraph C.... The limitations of cameras
3Paragraph D… The spread of technology
4Paragraph E… The spy in the sky
5Paragraph F… Advantages and disadvantages

Questions 6-8
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

Write your answers in boxes 6-8 on your answer sheet.

6Britain has already got

Four million CCTV cameras

7Professor Press

Works at the University of Manchester

A type of toy in the shape of a plane

Questions 9 and 10
Complete the summary below.

Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for your answer.

9 Give examples of 2 events where technology is used to watch crowds. 

Answer: Rock festivals, football

10 According to the passage, who do we not want to use the Micro-drone? 

Answer: private security firms

Questions 11-13
Do the following statements agree with the information given in reading passage

In boxes 10-13 on your answer sheet, write

YES if the statement agrees with the writer's claims

11The British authorities use too much technology to monitor their citizens. NOT GIVEN

12Microdrone is currently not used to check drivers. YES

13Technology should not be used to check on people's private affairs. YES