"The aim of the paper is to discuss questions about camera surveillance and crime prevention in a changing urban landscape. Based on a systematic review on international research on camera surveillance and results from a case study in south Sweden, involving young people, the effects on crime prevention and use of public space will be discussed. Special focus will be on cultural and social aspects, including the relation between attitudes towards surveillance technologies and their effects on crime prevention and social interaction in public places. Surveillance, the process by which the few monitor the many and keep records of them, is an old city phenomenon. In architecture we can find it as an archetype in Jeremy Bentham´s Panopticon Prison. Other ""historical"" examples are the ""Gossip mirrors"" – often found on the windows of multi family houses in Scandinavian cities - through which you could watch the street without opening the window. Today we have more sophisticated surveillance methods using video cameras and electronic equipment to watch the other and to protect ourselves from encroachment. In recent years there has been a sustained growth in the use of camera surveillance in public places in many Western nations. One estimates that the total number of public cameras in the U.K. are 4.2 million, or one for every 14 citizen. In the U.S. there are no national estimates on the number of cameras, but local accounts indicate that they are being implemented at an unprecedented rate and their popularity is no longer limited to large urban centres. In countries like Sweden and Norway the amount of cameras are growing rapidly but at the same time they are highly regulated in public places often requiring a permit from the county administrative board. The primary objective of camera surveillance is the prevention of personal and property crime in public space. But what are the social and cultural benefits of such urban surveillance? Are these cameras a threat on our personal integrity? The very idea of camera surveillance evokes curiosity, desire, aggression, guilt and above all - fear. These emotions interact in a day dream drama of seeing and being seen, concealment and self exposure, inclusion and exclusion. Can the intension and attraction of these dramas help us to understand the glamour and malevolence with which the technologies of surveillance are invested, and our acceptance of it?"