This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010)

Surveillance cameras on a corner.

Dome CCTV cameras

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.

It differs from broadcast television in that the signal is not openly transmitted, though it may employ point to point (P2P), point to multipoint, or mesh wireless links. Though almost all video cameras fit this definition, the term is most often applied to those used for surveillance in areas that may need monitoring such as banks, casinos, airports, military installations, and convenience stores. Videotelephony is seldom called "CCTV" but the use of video in distance education, where it is an important tool, is often so called.^[1][2]

In industrial plants, CCTV equipment may be used to observe parts of a process from a central control room, for example when the environment is not suitable for humans. CCTV systems may operate continuously or only as required to monitor a particular event. A more advanced form of CCTV, utilizing Digital Video Recorders (DVRs), provides recording for possibly many years, with a variety of quality and performance options and extra features (such as motion-detection and email alerts). More recently, decentralized IP-based CCTV cameras, some equipped with megapixel sensors, support recording directly to network-attached storage devices, or internal flash for completely stand-alone operation.

Surveillance of the public using CCTV is particularly common in many areas around the world including the United Kingdom, where there are reportedly more cameras per person than in any other country in the world.^[3] There and elsewhere, its increasing use has triggered a debate about security versus privacy.

History[link]

Closed circuit TV in Munich, 1973 photo

Sign warning that premises are watched by CCTV cameras.

The first CCTV system was installed by Siemens AG at Test Stand VII in Peenemünde, Germany in 1942, for observing the launch of V-2 rockets.^[4] The noted German engineer Walter Bruch was responsible for the design and installation of the system.

In the U.S. the first commercial closed-circuit television system became available in 1949, called Vericon. Very little is known about Vericon except it was advertised as not requiring a government permit.^[5]

CCTV recording systems are still often used at modern launch sites to record the flight of the rockets, in order to find the possible causes of malfunctions,^[6][7] while larger rockets are often fitted with CCTV allowing pictures of stage separation to be transmitted back to earth by radio link.^[8]

The history of CCTV in the United States varies from that of the United Kingdom. One of its first appearances was in 1973 in Times Square in New York City.^[9] The NYPD installed it in order to deter crime that was occurring in the area however crime rates did not appear to drop much due to the cameras.^[9] Nevertheless, during the 1980s video surveillance began to spread across the country specifically targeting public areas.^[10] It was seen as a cheaper way to deter crime compared to increasing the size of the police departments.^[9] Some businesses as well, especially those that were prone to theft, began to use video surveillance.^[9] During the 1990s digital multiplexing, which allowed for several cameras at once to record, and introduced time lapse and motion only recording, increased the use of CCTV across the country.^[10] This would have been preferable to the old style of camera due to the amount of time and money that could be saved. From the mid 1990s on, police departments across the country installed an increasing number of cameras in various public spaces including housing projects, schools and public parks departments.^[9] Following the attacks on September 11, the use of video surveillance has become a common occurrence in the country to deter future terrorist attacks.^[9]

In September 1968, Olean, New York was the first city in the United States to install video cameras along its main business street in an effort to fight crime.^[11]

The use of CCTV later on became very common in banks and stores to discourage theft, by recording evidence of criminal activity. Their use further popularised the concept. The first place to use CCTV in the United Kingdom was King's Lynn, Norfolk.^[12]

In recent decades, especially with general crime fears growing in the 1990s and 2000s, public space use of surveillance cameras has taken off, especially in some countries such as the United Kingdom.

Uses[link]

Crime prevention[link]

Experiments in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s (including outdoor CCTV in Bournemouth in 1985), led to several larger trial programs later that decade.^[12]

These were deemed successful in the government report "CCTV: Looking Out For You", issued by the Home Office in 1994, and paved the way for a massive increase in the number of CCTV systems installed. Today, systems cover most town and city centres, and many stations, car-parks and estates.

A more recent analysis by Northeastern University and the University of Cambridge, "Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," examined 44 different studies that collectively surveyed areas from the United Kingdom to U.S. cities such as Cincinnati and New York. The analysis found that: 1) Surveillance systems were most effective in parking lots, where their use resulted in a 51% decrease in crime; 2) Public transportation areas saw a 23% decrease in crimes; 3) Systems in public settings were the least effective, with just a 7% decrease in crimes overall. When sorted by country, however, systems in the United Kingdom accounted for the majority of the decrease; the drop in other areas was insignificant.^[13]

The results from the above 2009 “Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” conducted by Walsh and Farrington,^[13][14] are somewhat controversial.^[15] Earlier similar meta-analysis completed by Welsh and Farrington in 2002 showed similar results: a significant decrease in car park crime (41%), and a non-significant decrease of crime in public transit and public places.^[16] This study was criticized for the inclusion of confounding variables (e.g. notification of CCTV cameras on site, improved street lighting) found in the studies analyzed (including car park studies). These factors could not be teased apart from the effect of CCTV cameras being present or absent while crimes were being committed.^[14][15] Thus, a combination of factors might be important for the decrease in crime not just the CCTV cameras. The 2009 study admitted to similar problems as well as issues with the consistency of the percentage of area covered by CCTV cameras within the tested sites (e.g. car parks have more cameras per square inch than public transit).^[14] There is still much research to be done to determine the effectiveness of CCTV cameras on crime prevention before any conclusions can be drawn.

There is strong anecdotal evidence that CCTV aids in detection and conviction of offenders; indeed UK police forces routinely seek CCTV recordings after crimes. Moreover CCTV has played a crucial role in tracing the movements of suspects or victims and is widely regarded by antiterrorist officers as a fudamental tool in tracking terrorist suspects. Large-scale CCTV installations have played a key part of the defences against terrorism since the 1970s. Cameras have also been installed on public transport in the hope of deterring crime,^[17][18] and in mobile police surveillance vans, often with automatic number plate recognition, and a network of APNI-linked cameras is used to manage London's congestion charging zone. Even so there is political hostility to surveillance and several commentators downplay the evidence of CCTV's effectiveness, especially in the US.^[19] However, most of these assertions are based on poor methodology or imperfect comparisons.^[20] A more open question is whether most CCTV is cost-effective. While low-quality domestic kits are cheap the professional installation and maintenance of high definition CCTV is expensive.^[21] Gill and Spring did a cost-benefit analysis of CCTV in crime prevention that showed little monetary saving with the installation of CCTV as most of the crimes prevented resulted in little monetary loss.^[15] It was however noted that benefits of non-monetary value cannot be captured in a traditional cost-benefit analysis and were omitted from their study.^[15] To get a full understanding of the costs and benefits of CCTV in crime prevention these factors would have to be included. A 2008 Report by UK Police Chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV.^[22] In London, a Metropolitan Police report showed that in 2008 only one crime was solved per 1000 cameras.^[23]In some cases CCTV cameras have become a target of attacks themselves.^[24]

On July 22, 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station. According to brother Giovani Menezes, "The film showed that Jean did not have suspicious behaviour" .^[25]

Because of the bombing attempts the previous day, some of the tapes had been supposedly removed from CCTV cameras for study, and they were not functional.^[26] An ongoing change to DVR-based technology may in future stop similar problems occurring.^[27]

In October 2009, an "Internet Eyes" website was announced which would pay members of the public to view CCTV camera images from their homes and report any crimes they witnessed. The site aimed to add "more eyes" to cameras which might be insufficiently monitored, but civil liberties campaigners criticized the idea as "a distasteful and a worrying development".^[28]

Prevalence[link]

The number of CCTV cameras in the UK is not known for certain because there is no requirement to register CCTV cameras. However, an article published in CCTV Image magazine estimates that the number of cameras in the UK is 1.85 million. The number is based on extrapolating from a comprehensive survey of public and private cameras within the Cheshire Constabulary jurisdiction.^[29] This works out as an average of one camera for every 32 people in the UK, although the density of cameras varies from place to place to such a degree as to make this figure almost meaningless. The Cheshire report also claims that the average person on a typical day would be seen by 70 CCTV cameras, although many of these sightings would be brief glimpses from cameras in shops.

The Cheshire figure is regarded as more dependable than a previous study by Michael McCahill and Clive Norris of UrbanEye published in 2002.^[30] Based on a small sample in Putney High Street, McCahill and Norris estimated the number of surveillance cameras in private premises in London at around 500,000 and the total number of cameras in the UK at around 4,200,000. According to their estimate the UK has one camera for every 14 people. Although it has been acknowledged for several years that the methodology behind this figure is somewhat dubious,^[31] it has continued to be quoted in the absence of a better figure.

The CCTV User Group estimates that there are around 1.5 million CCTV cameras in city centres, stations, airports, major retail areas and so forth. This figure does not include the smaller surveillance systems such as those that may be found in local corner shops^[32] and is therefore broadly in line with the Cheshire report.

Research conducted by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research and based on a survey of all Scottish local authorities, identified that there are over 2,200 public space CCTV cameras in Scotland.^[33]

Hacking and video art[link]

Hackers and guerrilla artists have exposed the vulnerabilities of the video systems in an act dubbed "video sniffing"^[34][35] They have crossed feeds, uploaded their own video feeds and used the video footage for artistic purposes.

Industrial processes[link]

Industrial processes that take place under conditions dangerous for humans are today often supervised by CCTV. These are mainly processes in the chemical industry, the interior of reactors or facilities for manufacture of nuclear fuel. Special cameras for some of these purposes include line-scan cameras and thermographic cameras which allow operators to measure the temperature of the processes. The usage of CCTV in such processes is sometimes required by law.^[specify]

Traffic monitoring[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Many cities and motorway networks have extensive traffic-monitoring systems, using closed-circuit television to detect congestion and notice accidents. Many of these cameras however, are owned by private companies and transmit data to drivers' GPS systems.

The UK. Highways Agency has a publicly-owned CCTV network of over 1,200 cameras covering the English motorway and trunk road network. These cameras are primarily used to monitor traffic conditions and are not used as speed cameras. With the addition of fixed cameras for the Active Traffic Management system, the number of cameras on the Highways Agency's CCTV network is likely to increase significantly over the next few years.

The London congestion charge is enforced by cameras positioned at the boundaries of and inside the congestion charge zone, which automatically read the license plates of cars. If the driver does not pay the charge then a fine will be imposed. Similar systems are being developed as a means of locating cars reported stolen.

Other surveillance cameras serve as traffic enforcement cameras.

Transport safety[link]

Digital Video Recorder for Public Transport

A CCTV system may be installed where an operator of a machine cannot directly observe people who may be injured by some unexpected machine operation. For example, on a subway train, CCTV cameras may allow the operator to confirm that people are clear of doors before closing them and starting the train.

Operators of an amusement park ride may use a CCTV system to observe that people are not endangered by starting the ride. A CCTV camera and dashboard monitor can make reversing a vehicle safer, if it allows the driver to observe objects or people not otherwise visible.

Outside the U.K.[link]

The use of CCTV in the United States is less common, though increasing, and generally meets stronger opposition. In 1998, 3,000 CCTV systems were in use in New York City.^[36] There are more than 10,000 CCTV systems in Chicago.^[37]

In the last few years particularly, the percentage of people in the U.S. having installed a security-camera system has increased dramatically. Global Security Solutions with the help of Zone Tech Systems first announced the launch of IP surveillance in the U.S. security industry by partnering up with Axis Communications (an IP pioneer). Today's CCTV market has transformed the shift towards IP-based security products and systems.

In Latin America, the CCTV market is growing rapidly with the increase of property crime.^[38]

Criminal use[link]

Criminals may use surveillance cameras, for example a hidden camera at an ATM to capture people's PINs without their knowledge. The devices are small enough not to be noticed, and are placed where they can monitor the keypad of the machine as people enter their PINs. Images may be transmitted wirelessly to the criminal.^[39]

Privacy[link]

A mobile closed-circuit TV van monitoring a street market

Opponents of CCTV point out the loss of privacy of the people under surveillance, and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties. Furthermore, they argue that CCTV displaces crime, rather than reducing it. Critics often dub CCTV as "Big Brother surveillance", a reference to George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, which featured a two-way telescreen in every home through which The Party would monitor the populace. Civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch have published several research papers into CCTV systems. In December 2009, they released a report documenting council controlled CCTV cameras.^[40]

More positive views of CCTV cameras have argued that the cameras are not intruding into people's privacy, as they are not surveiling private, but public space, where an individual's right to privacy can reasonably be weighed against the intended benefits of surveillance.^[41] However, both the United States Supreme Court in Katz v. United States and anti-surveillance activists have held that there is a right to privacy in public areas.^[42][43] Furthermore, while it is true that there may be scenarios wherein a citizen's right to public privacy can be both reasonably and justifiably compromised, some scholars have argued that such situations are so rare as to not sufficiently warrant the frequent compromising of public privacy rights that occurs in regions with widespread CCTV surveillance. For example, in her book Setting the Watch: Privacy and the Ethics of CCTV Surveillance, Beatrice von Silva-Tarouca Larsen argues that CCTV surveillance is ethically permissible only in "certain restrictively defined situations", such as when a specific location has a "comprehensively documented and significant criminal threat" (p. 160). Her central reasoning is that widespread CCTV surveillance violates citizens' rights to privacy and anonymity within the public sphere by jeopardizing both their liberty and dignity. She concludes that CCTV surveillance should therefore be reserved for specific circumstances in which there are clear and reasonably demonstrated benefits to its implementation and few ethical compromises.^[44]

Questions are also raised about illegal access to CCTV recordings. The Data Protection Act 1998 in the United Kingdom led to legal restrictions on the uses of CCTV recordings, and also mandated their registration with the Data Protection Agency. In 2004, the successor to the Data Protection Agency, the Information Commissioner's Office clarified that this required registration of all CCTV systems with the Commissioner, and prompt deletion of archived recordings. However, subsequent case law (Durant vs. FSA) has limited the scope of the protection provided by this law, and not all CCTV systems are currently regulated.^[45] Private sector personnel in the UK who operate or monitor CCTV devices or systems are now considered security guards and have been made subject to state licensing.

A 2007 report by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, highlighted the need for the public to be made more aware of the "creeping encroachment" into their civil liberties created by the growing use of surveillance apparatus. A year prior to the report Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, warned that Britain was "sleepwalking into a surveillance society".

In 2007, the UK watchdog CameraWatch claimed that the majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are operated illegally or are in breach of privacy guidelines.^{[citation needed]} In response, the Information Commissioner's Office denied the claim adding that any reported abuses of the Data Protection Act are swiftly investigated.^[46]

In Canada, the use of video surveillance has grown very rapidly. In Ontario, both the municipal and provincial versions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ^[47] outline very specific guidelines that control how images and information can be gathered by this method and or released.

Technological developments[link]

Surveillance camera at London (Heathrow) Airport with a wiper for clear images during rain

Computer controlled analytics and identification[link]

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: too few or missing citations. Please help improve this section if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (July 2010)

Today’s High-definition CCTV cameras have many computer controlled technologies that allow them to identify, track, and categorize objects in their field of view.

Video Content Analysis (VCA) is the capability of automatically analyzing video to detect and determine temporal events not based on a single image. As such, it can be seen as the automated equivalent of the biological visual cortex.

A system using VCA can recognize changes in the environment and even identify and compare objects in the database using size, speed, and sometimes color. The camera’s actions can be programmed based on what it is “seeing”. For example; an alarm can be issued if an object has moved in a certain area, or if a painting is missing from a wall, and if someone has spray painted the lens.

VCA analytics can also be used to detect unusual patterns in a videos environment. The system can be set to detect anomalies in a crowd of people, for instance a person moving in the opposite direction in airports where passengers are only supposed to walk in one direction out of a plane or in a subway where people are not supposed to exit through the entrances.^[48]

VCA also has the ability to track people on a map by calculating their position from the images. It is then possible to link many cameras and track a person through an entire building or area. This can allow a person to be followed without having to analyze many hours of film. Currently the cameras have difficulty identifying individuals from video alone, but if connected to a key-card system, identities can be established and displayed as a tag over their heads on the video.

There is also a significant difference in where the VCA technology is placed, either the data is being processed within the cameras (on the edge) or by a centralized server. Both technologies have their pros and cons.^[49]

Facial recognition system Is a computer application for automatically identifying or verifying a person from a digital image or a video frame from a video source. One of the ways to do this is by comparing selected facial features from the image and a facial database.

The combination of CCTV and facial recognition has been tried as a form of mass surveillance, but has been ineffective because of the low discriminating power of facial recognition technology and the very high number of false positives generated. This type of system has been proposed to compare faces at airports and seaports with those of suspected terrorists or other undesirable entrants.

Eye-in-the-sky surveillance dome camera watching from a high steel pole

Computerized monitoring of CCTV images is under development, so that a human CCTV operator does not have to endlessly look at all the screens, allowing an operator to observe many more CCTV cameras.^{[citation needed]} These systems do not observe people directly. Instead, they track their behavior by looking for particular types of body-movement behavior, or particular types of clothing or baggage.

To many, the development of CCTV in public areas, linked to computer databases of people's pictures and identity, presents a serious breach of civil liberties. Critics fear the possibility that one would not be able to meet anonymously in a public place or drive and walk anonymously around a city.^{[citation needed]} Demonstrations or assemblies in public places could be affected as the state would be able to collate lists of those leading them, taking part, or even just talking with protesters in the street.

Retention, storage and preservation[link]

Most CCTV systems record and store digital video and images to a Digital Video Recorder or in the case of IP cameras directly to a server, either on-site or offsite.

The amount of data stored and the retention period of the video or pictures are subject to compression ratios, images stored per second, image size and duration of image retention before being overwritten. ^[50]

Recordings are usually kept for a preset amount of time and then automatically archived, overwritten or deleted. The amount of time the videos are kept allow retrieval and review in the event a crime was committed or the information needs to be studied for any number of reasons.

Closed-circuit digital photography (CCDP)[link]

Closed-circuit digital photography (CCDP) is more suited for capturing and saving recorded high-resolution photographs, whereas closed-circuit television (CCTV) is more suitable for live-monitoring purposes.

However, an important feature of some CCTV systems is the ability to take high resolution images of the camera scene, e.g. on a time lapse or motion-detection basis. Images taken with a digital still camera often have higher resolution than those taken with some video cameras. Increasaingly, low-cost high-resolution digital still cameras can also be used for CCTV purposes.

Images may be monitored remotely when the computer is connected to a network.

IP cameras[link]

Easy Connect Wireless IP camera

A growing branch in CCTV is internet protocol cameras (IP cameras). IP cameras use the Internet Protocol (IP) used by most Local Area Networks (LANs) to transmit video across data networks in digital form. IP can optionally be transmitted across the public internet, allowing users to view their camera(s) through any internet connection available through a computer or a 3G phone. For professional or public infrastructure security applications, IP video is restricted to within a private network or VPN.^[51]

Networking CCTV cameras[link]

The city of Chicago operates a networked video surveillance system which combines CCTV video feeds of government agencies with those of the private sector, installed in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects etc. Even home owners are able to contribute footage. It is estimated to incorporate the video feeds of a total of 15,000 cameras.

The system is used by Chicago's Office of Emergency Management in case of an emergency call: it detects the caller's location and instantly displays the real-time video feed of the nearest security camera to the operator, not requiring any user intervention. While the system is far too vast to allow complete real-time monitoring, it stores the video data for later usage in order to provide possible evidence in criminal cases.^[52]

London also has a network of CCTV systems that allows multiple authorities to view and control CCTV cameras in real time. The system allows authorities including the Metropolitan Police Service, Transport for London and a number of London boroughs to share CCTV images between them. It uses a network protocol called Television Network Protocol to allow access to many more cameras than each individual system owner could afford to run and maintain.

The Glynn County Police Department uses a wireless mesh-networked system of portable battery-powered tripods for live megapixel video surveillance and central monitoring of tactical police situations. The systems can be used either on a stand-alone basis with secure communications to nearby police laptops, or within a larger mesh system with multiple tripods feeding video back to the command vehicle via wireless, and to police headquarters via 3G.

Integrated systems[link]

An integrated systems unit.

Integrated systems allow users to connect remotely from the internet and view what their cameras are viewing remotely, similar to that of IP cameras. In one incident, a lady from Boynton Beach, Florida was able to watch her house get robbed and contacted police directly from her office at work.^[53]

Wireless security cameras[link]

Many consumers are turning to wireless security cameras for home surveillance also. Wireless cameras do not require a video cable for video/audio transmission, simply a cable for power. Wireless cameras are also easy and inexpensive to install. Previous generations of wireless security cameras relied on analog technology; modern wireless cameras use digital technology which delivers crisper audio, sharper video, and a secure and interference-free signal.

CCTV camera vandalism[link]

Unless physically protected, CCTV cameras have been found to be vulnerable against a variety of (mostly illegal) tactics:

• Some people will deliberately destroy cameras. Some cameras can come with Dust-Tight, Pressurized, Explosion proof, and bullet-resistant housings.^[54]
• Spraying substances over the lens can make the image too blurry to be read.
• Lasers can blind or damage them. However, since most lasers are monochromatic, color filters can reduce the effect of laser pointers. However, filters will also impair image quality and overall light sensitivity of cameras (see laser safety article for details on issues with filters). Also, complete protection from infrared, red, green, blue and UV lasers would require use of completely black filters, rendering the camera useless.

See also[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Security cameras

• Space Shuttle External Tank and Solid Rocket Booster Camera Systems
• UK Government pro-CCTV campaign
• Assessing the Impact of CCTV, a UK Home office study on the effectiveness of closed-circuit television
• The Register story: Face recognition useless for crowd surveillance
• CCTV Guidance notes from the UK Information Commissioner's Office
• CBC Digital Archives - The Long Lens of the Law
• The Urbaneye Project on CCTV in Europe
• CCTV:Constant Cameras Track Violators National Institute of Justice Journal 249 (2003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
• Public Space CCTV in Scotland: Results of a National Survey of Scotland's Local Authorities
• Opinion on Video Surveillance in Public Places by Public Authorities and the Protection of Human Rights and Opinion on Video Surveillance by Private Operators in the Public and Private Spheres and by Public Authorities in the Private Sphere and the Protection of Human Rights, Venice Commission, 2007

Mahmoud Abdel Rauf al-Mabhouh (Arabic: محمود عبد الرؤوف المبحوح; February 14, 1960^[1] – January 19, 2010)^[2] was a senior Hamas military commander and one of the founders of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military affiliate of Hamas. Police in the UAE, where al-Mabhouh was killed, believe that al-Mabhouh's killing was carried out by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.^[3]

As an al-Qassam Brigades operative, Al-Mabhouh was involved in several armed actions targeting Israel, including the abduction and killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1989.^[4][5] In more recent years, al-Mabhouh had assumed an important role procuring weapons for the al-Qassam Brigades.^[6] In 2010, journalists Yossi Melman and Dan Raviv alleged that Mabhouh had played a key role in forging secret connections between the Hamas government in Gaza and the Al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran.^[7]

Al-Mabhouh was killed in the five-star Al Bustan Rotana Hotel in Dubai on January 19, 2010, having arrived in the country earlier that day from Syria under an alias and using one of several passports.^[8][9] The Dubai police state that al-Mabhou was drugged and then suffocated with a pillow.^[10] Widespread speculation, which Dubai police allegations support, is that he was killed by Israeli Mossad assassins. Allegations that the assassins used fraudulently obtained passports from several countries led to the arrests and expulsions of Israeli officials in several European countries and Australia.^[3][11][12]

Biography[link]

Al-Mabhouh was born in Jabalia Camp, Gaza, on February 14, 1960.^[13] As a young man, he pursued weightlifting. He quit secondary school, trained as a car mechanic and later became a garage owner.^[14] Al-Mabhouh had 13 siblings, and was a married father of four.^[14]

In the 1970s, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, and in the 1980s, he was reported to have been involved in sabotaging coffee shops where gambling was taking place. In 1986, the Israeli security forces arrested him for possession of an assault rifle. It has been reported that after his release, he became involved with Hamas.

According to a Hamas statement, Al-Mabhouh was involved in the 1989 abduction and killing of the Israeli soldiers Avi Sasportas and Ilan Sa'adon.^[5][15] In a video taped two weeks before his death, and broadcast on Al-Jazeera in early February, 2010, Mabhouh admitted his involvement, saying he had disguised himself as an Orthodox Jew.^[16][17] In May 1989, a failed attempt was made to arrest him for his involvement in the murder of the two Israeli soldiers and he subsequently left the Gaza Strip; his home in Gaza was demolished by Israel in 1989 as retribution for the attack.^[18]

According to a report in The Palestine Chronicle, al-Mabhouh had survived two assassination attempts; the first was a car bombing; the second took place in Beirut in 2009 and involved the use of poison which rendered him unconscious for 30 hours.^[19]

Al-Mabhouh was believed by Israel to have been involved in smuggling weapons and explosives into Gaza.^[1] He spent most of 2003 in an Egyptian jail.^[20] At the time of his death, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was wanted by the Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian governments,^[20] and living in Syria.^[21]

In recent years, Mabhouh is alleged to have played a key role in forging secret connections between the Hamas government in Gaza and the Al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran.^[7]

Death[link]

An Al Bustan Rotana Hotel room in Dubai.

On January 19, 2010, al-Mabhouh was killed in his room in a hotel in Dubai. He had been followed by at least 11 individuals suspected of being Mossad agents, who were carrying fake or fraudulently obtained passports from various Western nations, seven of which assumed the names of Israeli dual citizens. Reports indicate that al-Mabhouh was tracked by his killers from Damascus to Dubai.^[22] He was travelling without bodyguards, and was en route to Bangkok.^[23][24] Although it has been reported that he carried five passports under different names, Hamas officials in Syria reportedly stated that at this time he was using one issued in his own name.^[25]

He checked into the Al Bustan Rotana hotel on the afternoon of January 19.^[20][26] He left the hotel about an hour after check-in, and there are conflicting reports as to what he did during the few hours before he was killed.^[24][27] At approximately 8:25 p.m. Al-Mabhouh went back to his room.^[26] He failed to answer a call from his wife a half hour later.^[20]

According to Dubai Police Force, he was dead by 9 p.m. that evening.^[2] On January 20, the following day, his body was found in his hotel room.^[22][28] Al-Mabhouh's remains were transported to Damascus for burial.

Hotel surveillance footage released to the public shows the suspects, who had arrived on separate flights, meeting in the hotel. While the suspects used personal communication devices among themselves to avoid surveillance, a number of telephone calls were made to a number in Austria. When al-Mabhouh arrived around 3pm, two of the suspects followed him to his room. They then checked into the room opposite al-Mabhouh's. At 8pm al-Mabhouh left the hotel and while several of the suspects kept watch, two tried to gain entry to his room, but were disturbed when a tourist exited the nearby elevator. While another suspect distracted the tourist, four suspects allegedly entered the victim’s hotel room using an electronic device, and waited for him to return. Hotel computer logs indicate that an attempt was made to reprogram al-Mabhouh’s electronic door lock at this time.

Cause of death[link]

Initially, Dubai authorities believed al-Mabhouh had died of natural causes.^[29] Results from a preliminary forensic report by the Dubai police found that al-Mabhouh was first paralyzed by an injection of succinylcholine (suxamethonium), a fast-acting muscle relaxant. He was then suffocated with a pillow,^[30] though their investigation and final report on the matter would not be ready until the beginning of March.^[2] Signs indicated that al-Mabhouh attempted to resist as he was being suffocated. The hyper-relaxation mode induced by this drug applies only to muscles – the victim remains conscious.^[31] Dubai authorities stated they were ruling the death a homicide and were working with the International Criminal Police Organization to investigate the incident.^[32]

Suspects[link]

Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, Lt. Gen. and Dubai's police chief, announced on February 18 that, "Our investigations reveal that Mossad is involved in the murder of al-Mabhouh ... It is 99% if not 100% that Mossad is standing behind the murder."^[33] Dubai police said the killers spent little time in the emirate, arriving less than a day before the murder, killing al-Mabhouh between his arrival at 3:15 p.m. and 9 p.m. that night, and leaving the country before the discovery of the murder.^[2]

The Israeli government initially did not comment on claims that it was involved in Mabhouh's death.^[34] On February 17, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman refused to confirm or deny any Israeli involvement, citing Israel's "policy of ambiguity" on such matters, and claimed a lack of solid evidence for Israeli involvement.^[35] Lieberman even declared that the press "watch too many James Bond movies".^[36] Later the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, said "there is nothing linking Israel to the assassination."^[37] However, Israeli media and public opinion have generally accepted Mossad's responsibility for the operation.^[38]

The identities used by eleven of the suspects have been publicly identified, based on passports that the Dubai police said were not forgeries,^[39][40] though both the British and Irish governments said the passports bearing their countries' names were "either fraudulently obtained or [are] outright fakes."^[41] The total number of suspects stands at eighteen, all of whom entered the country using fake or fraudulently obtained passports.^[42] Passports used by the assassins were from the United Kingdom (6),^[43] Republic of Ireland (5),^[44] Australia (3),^[45] France (1 – suspected of being the hit squad leader and logistical coordinator),^[46][47] and Germany (1).^[47]

The names used on the six UK passports and the German passport belong to individuals who live in Israel and hold dual citizenships.^[48]

The photographs of 11 of the suspected assassins were added to Interpol's most wanted list on February 18, with a note specifying that they had been published since the identities adopted by the suspects were faked. Dubai airport officials carried out routine retinal scans on 11 of the suspects sought in the assassination when they entered the country and Dubai police said they would publish the scans through INTERPOL.^[49]

Two Palestinians, Ahmad Hasnin, an intelligence operative of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA), and Anwar Shekhaiber, an employee of the PA in Ramallah, were arrested in Jordan and handed over to Dubai, suspected of giving logistical assistance.^[50] Hamas said the two were former Fatah security officials that both worked at a construction company in Dubai owned by Mohammed Dahlan, another senior Fatah security official, and that they rented cars and hotel rooms for members of the Mossad hit team alleged to have carried out the killing. Dahlan and Fatah denied the charges.^[51] Recruitment of Ahmad Hasnin by the Mossad may have occurred while he was imprisoned by Israel for a month in June 2007 for his involvement with Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's paramilitary wing. He came to the UAE in 2008, according to a family source.^[52]

On February 19 Dubai police chief Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan called for Interpol to issue a "red notice" to approve the arrest of Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan, causing the Israeli government to deny he has enough proof.^[53]

Suspected Mossad Agent Arrested[link]

In early June 2010, German prosecutors announced that at Germany's request Polish authorities had arrested a suspected Mossad agent thought to have played a role in the Dubai assassination of a Hamas commander.

"He was arrested in Warsaw and is suspected of being involved in illegally obtaining a [German] passport," a spokesman for German federal prosecution said, confirming a report in the German magazine Der Spiegel.^[54]

Western government reactions[link]

In the wake of the revelation that passports of British citizens had figured prominently in the operation, the United Kingdom's Serious Organised Crime Agency launched its own investigation into the matter.^[55] The British Foreign Office also summoned the Israeli ambassador on February 18 to share information on the matter.^[56][57] The Daily Mail cited a previously reliable "British security source" as stating that Mossad had tipped off the UK that their passports would be used for an operation,^[58] but this was denied by the UK government.^[59]

Britain's Foreign Office believes that the passports used were fraudulent;^[60] one report indicated that they had issued the passports in January, the only difference between the actual identities being the photographs.^[61]

Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs declared that eight supposedly Irish passports used by the suspects were forged.^[62] On 15 June, following an extensive investigation, the Department of Foreign Affairs came to "the inescapable conclusion that an Israeli government agency was responsible for the misuse and, most likely, the manufacture of the forged Irish passports associated with the murder of Mr. Mabhouh." The government's immediate diplomatic reaction was that "Israel be requested to withdraw a designated member of staff of its Embassy in Dublin."^[63]

According to a spokesman of the French Foreign Affairs ministry, the French passport was counterfeit.^[64] The Israeli chargé d'affaires in Paris was summoned on February 18 and the French Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing, "deep concern about the malicious and fraudulent use of these French administrative documents."^[65]

German officials said that the passport number which they received from the authorities in Dubai is either incomplete or does not exist.^[60] In June 2010, Polish authorities arrested a suspect in connection with the case. Germany has sought his extradition over the alleged misuse of its passports.^[66]

After learning of the alleged use of Australian passports by Mossad, the Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, publicly summoned the Israeli ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem. Mr. Smith told the ambassador that if Israel was responsible for the passport forgeries that "Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend". Soon after this occurred, Australia, who is usually a strong supporter of Israel at the United Nations, abstained on a UN motion to investigate Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza War, a motion that Australia had previously opposed. In the Australian press there was widespread speculation that the move was retaliation for the passport affair.^[67]

Australian and British investigators came to Israel to investigate the case. In May 2010, after receiving the final results of the investigation, Australia expelled an Israeli diplomat over the fake passport affair.^[68]

The U.S. refused to cooperate with investigation[link]

After al-Mabhouh's death the United Arab Emirates requested that the U.S. assist it in tracking down "cardholder details and related information for credit cards reportedly issued by a U.S. bank to several suspects." The U.S. has denied receiving the request. A cable sent from the U.S. consulate in Dubai, released by Wikileaks, however, shows that the U.S. declined the UAE request.^[69]

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Dubai Job : Mossad assassination Hamas

	Palestine portal
	Biography portal

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Wikinews has related news: Hamas claims Israel assassinated commander in Dubai

Wikinews has related news: Polish authorities arrest Israeli agent

• Biography of Mahmoud al-Mahbouh from the Information Office of the Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)

Tokio Hotel
Tokio Hotel, 2010. L-R: Georg Listing, Bill Kaulitz, Tom Kaulitz, and Gustav Schäfer
Background information
Origin	Magdeburg, Germany
Genres	Pop rock,[1][2] alternative rock,[3] emo,[4] glam rock,[5] power pop,[6][7][8][9]
Years active	2001–present
Labels	Universal Music Germany, Cherrytree, Interscope
Website	www.tokiohotel.com
Members
Bill Kaulitz Tom Kaulitz Georg Listing Gustav Schäfer

Tokio Hotel is a rock band from Germany, founded in 2001 by singer Bill Kaulitz, guitarist Tom Kaulitz, drummer Gustav Schäfer and bassist Georg Listing.^[10] The quartet have scored four number one singles and have released three number one albums in their native country, selling nearly 5 million CDs and DVDs there.^[11] After recording an unreleased demo-CD under the name "Devilish" and having their contract with Sony BMG Germany terminated, the band released their first German-language album, Schrei, as Tokio Hotel on Universal Music Germany in 2005. Schrei sold more than half a million copies worldwide^[12] and spawned four top five singles in both Germany and Austria. In 2007, the band released their second German album Zimmer 483 and their first English album Scream which have combined album sales of over one million copies worldwide and helped win the band their first MTV Europe Music Award for Best InterAct. The former, Zimmer 483, spawned three top five singles in Germany while the latter, Scream, spawned two singles that reached the top twenty in new territories such as France, Portugal, Spain and Italy. In September 2008, they won in the US their first MTV Video Music Award (VMA) for Best New Artist. In October 2008, they won four awards including Best International Artist and Song of the year at Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica (MTV Video Music Awards Latin America) held in Mexico. Tokio Hotel became the first German band ever to win an award at the MTV VMAs and also at the MTV Latin America Awards. They also picked up the Headliner award at the MTV Europe Music Awards 2008 held in Liverpool on November 6, 2008 and the Award for Best Group on November 5, 2009 at the MTV Europe Music Award (EMA) held in Berlin. They won an Award for Best World Stage Performance on November 7, 2010 at the MTV Europe Music Awards in Madrid. In July 2011, they became the first German band to win an MTV Video Music Awards Japan (VMAJ). And won MTV's 2012 Musical March Madness.