CCTV surveillance in the most populated cities in the United States

Some of the most populated cities in the United States are under a heavy amount of surveillance, according to new research by Comparitech. The average city has 11 surveillance cameras per 1,000 people. The most-watched city, Atlanta, has over 124 cameras per 1,000 people.

From monitoring traffic to preventing crime, surveillance cameras have a range of purposes. But with increasingly high resolutions, more remote access to live video streams, and the utilization of technologies like facial recognition and automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras – just how much is too much when it comes to police surveillance?

To find out which of the top 50 most populated cities in the US are under the most surveillance, we looked at the number of fixed CCTV cameras, the number of cameras accessed through real-time crime centers, the number of private cameras within the police force’s network, police body cameras and patrol car dash cameras, cameras on public transport facilities, and traffic cameras.

What did we find?

We were able to find data for all of the most populated cities but 13 were limited when it came to public transport camera figures (these are noted below). Across all of the top 50 most populated cities in the US, we found:

  • Nearly 537,000 cameras monitoring a population of 48.9 million people. This gives an average ratio of 11 cameras per 1,000 people
  • Atlanta was the most surveilled city with a ratio of 124.14 cameras per 1,000 people
  • New York City had the highest number of cameras in total: 70,882
  • A growing number of police forces (11 out of the 50 we covered) are turning to Flock safety cameras, which use ALPR technology
  • Many departments are also encouraging businesses and homeowners to add their private cameras to a police database, some of which include real-time access

The 10 most surveilled cities in the United States: cameras per person

Based on the number of cameras per 1,000 people, these are the most surveilled cities in the United States:

  1. Atlanta, Georgia – 60,864 cameras for 490,270 people = 124.14 cameras per 1,000 people
  2. Washington, DC – 35,082 cameras for 631,693 people = 55.54 cameras per 1,000 people*
  3. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – 46,957 cameras for 1,527,886 people = 30.73 cameras per 1,000 people
  4. San Francisco, California – 18,200 cameras for 715,717 people = 25.43 cameras per 1,000 people
  5. Denver, Colorado – 14,043 cameras for 699,288 people = 20.08 cameras per 1,000 people
  6. Chicago, Illinois – 48,283 cameras for 2,608,425 people = 18.51 cameras per 1,000 people
  7. Albuquerque, New Mexico – 9,525 cameras for 558,523 people = 17.05 cameras per 1,000 people
  8. Detroit, Michigan – 10,344 cameras for 621,193 people = 16.65 cameras per 1,000 people
  9. Las Vegas, Nevada – 10,159 cameras for 653,843 people = 15.54 cameras per 1,000 people
  10. Memphis, Tennessee – 8,417 cameras for 621,777 people = 13.54 cameras per 1,000 people

*This figure doesn’t include any public transport figures. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) operates a system of 20,000 cameras but this extends into various other areas (e.g. Montgomery County, MD, and Prince George’s County, MD).

How does Atlanta compare to cities around the world?

According to our study on the world’s most surveilled cities (based on the top 150 by population), Atlanta would be the second most surveilled city in the world, beaten only by cities in China. Atlanta’s extensive surveillance stems from a huge network of cameras registered via the Connect Atlanta initiative. At present, over 19,000 cameras have been registered (meaning police may review footage upon request) and over 17,000 cameras have been integrated (giving police real-time, direct access when required).

Atlanta police have at least 1,200 body cameras and all of their patrol vehicles (around 300) are equipped with dash cams and rear-seat cameras. Over 2,600 traffic cameras are in operation across the city, while the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) operates a network of 20,000 cameras on its bus and train network.

The 10 most surveilled cities in the United States: cameras per square mile

If we look at the number of cameras per square mile in the most populated cities, some of the above remain as the most surveilled cities, but others also join the top ten.

  1. Washington, DC – 35,082 cameras for 61.14 square miles = 573.8 cameras per square mile*
  2. Atlanta, Georgia – 60,864 cameras for 135.74 square miles = 448.4 cameras per square mile
  3. San Francisco, California – 18,200 cameras for 46.9 square miles = 388.1 cameras per square mile
  4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – 46,957 cameras for 134.28 square miles = 349.7 cameras per square mile
  5. New York City, New York – 70,882 cameras for 300.38 square miles = 236 cameras per square mile
  6. Chicago, Illinois – 48,283 cameras for 227.37 square miles = 212.4 cameras per square mile
  7. Boston, Massachusetts – 5,453 cameras for 48.34 square miles = 112.8 cameras per square mile
  8. Denver, Colorado – 14,043 cameras for 153.29 square miles = 91.6 cameras per square mile
  9. Los Angeles, California – 39,790 cameras for 468.96 square miles = 84.8 cameras per square mile
  10. Detroit, Michigan – 10,344 cameras for 138.72 square miles = 74.6 cameras per square mile

How does Washington, DC, compare to cities around the world?

It would feature as the third most surveilled city based on its number of cameras per square miles (excluding cities in China). With 573.8 cameras per square mile, it far exceeds Singapore’s 387.88 cameras per square mile and is only just below second-place Seoul’s figure of 618.45 per square mile.

Atlanta and San Francisco would also rank among the top five cities globally by this metric.

The top 10 most populated cities in the United States and their camera figures

  1. New York City, New York – 70,882 cameras for 7,888,121 people = 8.99 cameras per 1,000 people
  2. Los Angeles, California – 39,790 cameras for 3,769,485 people = 10.56 cameras per 1,000 people
  3. Chicago, Illinois – 48,283 cameras for 2,608,425 people = 18.51 cameras per 1,000 people
  4. Houston, Texas – 11,714 cameras for 2,264,876 people = 5.17 cameras per 1,000 people
  5. Phoenix, Arizona – 4,024 cameras for 1,651,344 people = 2.44 cameras per 1,000 people*
  6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – 46,957 cameras for 1,527,886 people = 30.73 cameras per 1,000 people
  7. San Antonio, Texas – 6,166 cameras for 1,479,493 people = 4.17 cameras per 1,000 people
  8. San Diego, California – 17,990 cameras for 1,374,076 people = 13.09 cameras per 1,000 people
  9. Dallas, Texas – 15,641 cameras for 1,259,404 people = 12.42 cameras per 1,000 people
  10. Austin, Texas – 5,873 cameras for 966,292 people = 6.08 cameras per 1,000 people

*Public transport figures may slightly exceed the city limits.

Do more cameras increase safety and reduce crime?

One of the most common arguments for the installation of cameras is to increase public safety and reduce crime rates. We compared the number of public cameras with the crime indices reported by Numbeo, which are based on surveys of that site’s visitors.

As you can see from the above chart, there is hardly any correlation between higher camera figures and lower crime indexes. Broadly speaking, then, crime rates aren’t reduced by having more cameras in place. In fact, the city that is arguably the most watched of all (DC), has seen violent crime skyrocket recently. Throughout 2023, the capital city saw a 39 percent increase in violent crime which included a 35 percent increase in homicides and a 68 percent increase in robberies. Property crime was also up by 24 percent.

Areas for concern

  • Private databases: A number of police departments/city councils are encouraging residents and businesses to share their private cameras with them. While some may only be accessible upon request by law enforcement agents, a growing number have real-time, direct access to these cameras. As we’ve already seen, police have access to nearly 40,000 such cameras in Atlanta. Other notable camera-sharing programs include Philadelphia (nearly 11,500 cameras as part of PPD’s SafeCam program), Washington DC (26,000 cameras donated by the council to private homes/businesses), and Memphis (3,500 cameras available through the Connect 2 Memphis program).
  • Flock safety cameras: At least 11 cities we have covered have introduced this technology in recent months (Houston, Fort Worth, San Jose, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Milwaukee, Omaha, Raleigh, Oakland, Bakersfield, and Tulsa). Flock cameras include automatic license plate recognition technology that isn’t just being used by police departments. Private users can also build their own database that generates an alarm when a listed plate is spotted (even running the plates against police and FBI databases). Unlike other ALPR tech that will delete license plate recordings after checking them against relevant databases, Flock is creating a large database of all this data.

Methodology and limitations

Comparitech researchers collated a number of resources to get an estimate of the number of public surveillance cameras in use. We focused on the United States’s 50 most heavily populated cities using worldpopulationreview.com data.

Where possible, we have only included public CCTV cameras, including cameras installed on public buildings, cameras used by law enforcement, cameras installed on public transport, and traffic cameras with surveillance capabilities (i.e. automatic number plate recognition). In some instances, it may not be clear what cameras are included, meaning some private camera figures may be included in the totals. Some transport cameras may be located outside of the city limits. We have noted where we feel this might be the case to some extent and have removed any that clearly cover a much larger area than the city proper.

Due to a wide range of sources reporting estimates and a general lack of public information regarding CCTV cameras, actual figures may be higher or lower than what is indicated. To try and ensure our study is as fair and accurate as possible, we opted for the lower figure where two or more different figures were quoted.

Most of the data sources used are from the last few years but, in some cases, only older data sources were found. The dates of the sources can be viewed by requesting access to the source sheet here.

Data researcher: Rebecca Moody