In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But suicide attackers are clearly not deterred by video cameras - and may even be attracted to the television coverage cameras can ensure - and the expense of an extensive video surveillance system such as Britain's - which sucks up approximately 20 percent of that nation's criminal justice budget - far exceeds the limited benefits that the system may provide in investigating attacks or attempted attacks after the fact ( see fact sheet on Surveillance Cameras and the Attempted London Attacks). The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video surveillance is the threat of terrorist attacks. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE Capitol, the impulse to blanket our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is a bad idea. In lower Manhattan, for example, the police are planning to set up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view thousands of video cameras around the downtown - and police-operated cameras have proliferated in many other cities across America in just the past several years.Īlthough the ACLU has no objection to cameras at specific, high-profile public places that are potential terrorist targets, such as the U.S.
The use of sophisticated systems by police and other public security officials is particularly troubling in a democratic society. Fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more. Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life. The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance
0 kommentar(er)
