This study performed questionery survey to measure the social tolerance of the surveillance camera that setting spread. Then, it clarified in what kind of scene and what kind of condition the setting of the surveillance camera and the use were socially acceptable. Specifically, it reports about people's intention about “pros and cons for the surveillance camera”, “the prevention/inspection of the crime”, “the prevention/inspection of the accident”, and “the prevention/inspection of the natural disaster”. As a result, it revealed that demography influenced the pros and cons for the surveillance camera, and an inspective effect was appreciated in comparison with protective effect.
Furthermore, in the investigation for the people who expressed a negative intention for the setting of the surveillance camera, it revealed that they felt the monitoring by the police/company desirable in comparison with residents' association, and, on the other hand, they did not feel the monitoring by the individual desirable. In addition, they felt the monitoring at traffic-laden place, workplace, public facilities, forest and the river desirable in comparison with around residential area. This result shows that even for people who are negative to monitoring, the higher the publicity of the monitoring entity and the monitoring subject is, the more surveillance is permitted, and even though the public nature of the surveillance subject is high, it shows that they do not want to monitor the space with low public property such as home.
View full abstract