Cameras Are More Than Silent Witnesses

Cameras Are More Than Silent Witnesses

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar September 2026

Guyana’s conversation about public-security cameras has too often remained at the shallowest level: where cameras are mounted, how many are installed, and whether footage might be available after a robbery, shooting, accident or other crime.

But modern surveillance systems, when properly designed and responsibly managed, can be far more than passive recording devices. They can become active public-safety tools; helping police identify wanted suspects, trace vehicles, locate missing people, detect violence, secure major events, protect vulnerable citizens and preserve evidence that can stand up in court.

The first day of London’s 2026 Notting Hill Carnival offers a timely example. At one of Europe’s largest street festivals, the Metropolitan Police combined officers on the ground, portable walk-through metal detectors, intelligence-led operations and live facial-recognition technology. By Sunday evening, of 169 reported arrests ,police said facial recognition had helped lead to 29 arrests and the identification of 26 registered sex offenders in attendance. Three were arrested for alleged breaches of their conditions.

The point is not that Guyana should automatically copy London, deploy facial recognition everywhere, or sacrifice privacy in the name of security. Facial recognition remains controversial, including because of legitimate concerns about privacy, accuracy, possible bias, data retention and misuse by state agencies.

But neither should Guyanese dismiss surveillance systems as little more than decorative poles, occasional CCTV footage, or a tool useful only after tragedy has occurred. London’s experience illustrates their potential versatility when technology is carefully deployed, integrated into an operational plan, linked to trained personnel and supported by a rapid response.

A camera on its own cannot stop a crime. It cannot make an arrest, recover a weapon, interview a witness or successfully prosecute an offender. But it can alert authorities to danger, help identify a suspect in real time, guide patrols to an unfolding incident, trace a suspect’s route, verify an alibi, locate a stolen vehicle or provide crucial evidence in court.

At a crowded public event, cameras can help security officials spot abandoned items, detect unusual crowd movement, identify access points that need reinforcement and direct emergency services where they are needed. Along major roadways, systems equipped with number-plate recognition can help trace stolen or suspect vehicles, identify dangerous driving patterns and support accident investigations. Around schools, hospitals, markets, transport hubs and government buildings, they can strengthen deterrence and shorten response time when serious incidents occur.

Guyana, which continues to confront violent crime, road fatalities, trafficking concerns, domestic violence, robberies and the security pressures that accompany rapid economic growth, should have an informed national discussion about what its surveillance infrastructure can—and cannot—do.

Government and law-enforcement agencies should also publish regular performance reports. Not general assurances. Not ceremonial announcements about new installations. The public needs measurable results: the number of incidents detected, the number of investigations assisted, arrests linked to footage, prosecutions supported, camera downtime, response times and the costs of operating and maintaining the system.

If advanced tools such as automated number-plate recognition or facial recognition are contemplated, the standards must be higher still. Their use should be governed by clear legislation, defined purposes, strict limits, independent oversight, human review before enforcement action, secure handling of data, reliable audit logs and meaningful remedies for abuse or error.

Surveillance must never become an instrument for monitoring political opponents, intimidating citizens, profiling communities or conducting unaccountable fishing expeditions. Public safety cannot be secured by giving any administration unchecked power to watch the public.The same technology that can help locate a violent offender can be abused if no one is required to explain how it operates or answer for misconduct.

That is why Guyana must reject the false choice between security and civil liberties. A mature system can protect both.

The real standard should be simple:

Effective technology, trained personnel, rapid response and transparent oversight lead to safer communities and public trust.

The world is moving beyond the era in which cameras merely recorded images for later review. Properly used, they can provide timely intelligence, guide police resources, support victims and strengthen the administration of justice.

Guyana should not be left behind. But it should also not move blindly. The country needs surveillance systems that work, evidence that proves they work, and laws and oversight strong enough to ensure that they serve the people rather than threaten them.