Sunday, July 10, 2005

Cameras wrong response to London bombings

Homeland Security Ubermeister Michael Chertoff just told NBC's Tim Russert on Meet the Press this morning that the United States should invest in "cameras and dogs" to protect subway, rail and bus transit systems from terrorist attacks.

B.S.


Surveillance cameras didn't deter the terrorist attacks in London. They didn't stop the courthouse killing spree in Atlanta. But they're prone to abuse. And at the end of they day they don't reduce crime.

11 comments:

Phil said...

You're exactly right, scott.

It's a sad fact that it's easy to give examples about why these sorts of things don't work.

Criminals and terrorists are not afraid a camera is going to catch them. If the means of deterrance does not frighten a potential infringer, then it isn't particularly useful, is it?

We need to spend more money on the ground, getting to the source of these things. Not trying to stop people once they're already set on destruction.

Anonymous said...

I agree somewhat with your conjecture regarding the value of remote surveillance, but with an empirical caveat. In particular, casinos have been employing such technology for quite some time, claiming that it has been quite helpful in catching cheaters. Is this because their use in such establishments is not so remote, but is backed up by a rapid response team (both overt and covert) to pounce on the perpetrators? Has law enforcement become too lax in solely relying on technology without having enough cops on the beat to act upon anomalous observations?

Anonymous said...

It's all nonsense. The true reality is that there is no way any governmental or police body, at any level of society, can prevent "terrorism." And they all should know it since it's been practiced since the time of the Romans without ever being stopped. The US gubmint practiced it in attacks on Iraq, killing countless "innocent victims." But see, then it was "us" doing it to them, so it was okay. When a single individual can now carry the firepower of what companies of men had in WWII, and when that single individual is willing to die in the execution of his/her attack, no "protection" is possible. Nor will it ever be.

Gleb said...

Cameras didn't prevent the London attack, but they definitely helped in the inquiry.

hexod.us said...

I believe that if people believe that cameras are the answer, let's do it distributed.

Anonymous said...

Casinos can successfully employ surveillance cameras because 1) they are multi-million (billion) dollar business that are 2) staffed 24/7 by large security teams. Also they are focused on catching cheating at the games, pickpockets, and other overt acts of violence and crime. Have someone walk in, though, with TNT strapped to their chest under their coat, all those cameras would likely prove worthless.

Anonymous said...

Cameras have reduced a lot of petty crimes here in some parts of central city. Many because the cop can prove that "he did it". It reduced court cost too, because the lawer says,"plea guilty, sentencing will be nicer, your on tape".

But for serious crime, when the only ppl caught on camera are dead. It mite help the post investigation, but its not a preventative mesure.

Delt0r

Anonymous said...

Cameras can't penetrate disguises!

Anonymous said...

I'm curious how the cameras helped with the inquiry. Somehow the info that there were four separate bomb carriers and that these carriers were part of a coordinated group and that the group was a terrorist one, somehow none of that seemed to be a revelation.

Identification was done entirely independent of cameras. AFAICT, the only result of the camera images is that... hmmm... ya' know, I can't think of a single useful item that came from the cameras.

Anonymous said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8655541/

Photos released of 4 sought in London attacks

Anonymous said...

Check this...
http://iwantmywww.thedavincisecrets.com