Your front-page story (Lords: Rise of CCTV is threat to freedom, 6 February) paints a disappointingly one-sided picture of the use of CCTV, the DNA database and powers that can keep our streets safe and bring criminals to book.

CCTV has helped to reclaim our town centres and public spaces for the law-abiding majority. It plays a key role in crime prevention and reducing the fear of crime - and CCTV footage was crucial in prosecuting those who planned suicide bombings in London on 21 July 2005. I know of no community in the country that has yet to join the crusade of some in the Conservative party for fewer CCTV cameras. Quite the reverse.

The DNA database has revolutionised police investigations. Each year, literally hundreds of homicides and rapes are resolved with the use of DNA matches. Of course, the strengths of the database can only be safeguarded if they enjoy public confidence. In December I announced immediate steps to remove the DNA of children under 10 from the database, and set out the case for greater flexibility and fairness in the system.

I have made clear the need to avoid frivolous use of investigatory powers, and will shortly consult on revisions to the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Where surveillance or data collection impacts on privacy it should only be used where it is both necessary and proportionate.

Those who claim we live in a "surveillance society" need to remember there are two sides to this story. We need to ensure personal privacy at the same time as we protect the public. I will continue to strike a commonsense balance between the two.

Jacqui Smith MP

Home secretary

The House of Lords report into surveillance draws attention to a pressing social issue. However, the debate is locked in a familiar stalemate - those for surveillance and those against it, with little in terms of practical action, technological regulation or legislative change.

Too much focus falls on contemporary surveillance apparatuses and techniques at the expense of understanding the cultural context in which this phenomenon has grown and the social implications that are at stake. How surveillance in everyday life has become "normalised" through popular cultural broadcasts and texts needs more attention, so too better understanding of the general logic behind surveillance.

It is also worth highlighting that surveillance systems are increasingly developed and administered by commercial institutions using information derived from our web browsers, credit/debit and loyalty cards. New forms of power have emerged which supplant the notion that the "surveillance society" is some state conspiracy. Indeed, surveillance needs to be seen as a diverse set of practices.

While the Lords report is valuable, it is already a historical document and thus provides recommendations that are about past or present capabilities, rather than future potentialities; and it is in this latter period we should be focusing our attentions.

Gavin JD Smith

Lecturer in surveillance studies, City University, London

I have recently agreed to take on a pub in a residential part of Islington. Under normal circumstances this would have simply involved the existing licence holder signing over the premises' licence to me. Unfortunately they had gone insolvent and disappeared so I applied for a new licence, which requires the approval of a number of organisations, including the police. I was stunned to find the police were prepared to approve, ie not fight, our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them upon request. There was no way that they could have imposed this on the previous licence holder.

As it happens the Islington Labour party headquarters is on the same street as the pub and, being a member, I contacted the MP Emily Thornberry to see if she really thinks she needs her photo taken when she pops in for a pint - needless to say I have not heard from her. I also spoke with a friend who is the licensing officer for another borough. Not only did he tell me that there was nothing I could do to overturn this, he also strongly advised me not to blot my copybook with the police by even questioning the request; I would not want them against me in the future, he said.

I have been spitting teeth in a silent rage since I first heard of this request, but at every turn I am alternately advised to keep my head down or laughed at for my naivety for thinking that the world was ever not thus. When was it that the constant small erosion of our liberties became irreversible?

Nick Gibson

London

In Ealing we have a council that has gone overboard with surveillance cameras mounted, ironically, on almost every one of our new "old world" street lights. At South Ealing underground station there are a mind-boggling 40 cameras covering its every centimetre.

It seems the surveillance industry has fuelled the paranoia and persuaded councils and other public bodies to go down this road to allay exaggerated fears fuelled by the media and supine ministers. For the manufacturers of the equipment it is a bonanza - with the servicing and monitoring they have an ongoing source of steady income.

John Green

London

I've actually stood in full view of a CCTV fitted inside a bus one day when a couple of idiots threatened me after I asked them to turn down their music. It made me feel safer. Terrorists, rapists and muggers have been convicted thanks to footage to back up testimony. So, what's wrong with them? As far as I can see, CCTV is a threat to freedom to commit a crime.

Catherine Conroy

London