On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Eric Murray wrote: > > > He said city officials had studied the British surveillance system, > > > which has more than 2 million cameras throughout the country, and > > > were "intrigued by that model." > > > <snip> > > > > Intrigued by the fact that cameras have almost NEVER helped to solved > > crimes in Britain, in spite of their ubituity? > > Intrigued by the fact that their citizens let them do it. > It's not about solving crimes against citizens.
FWIW few people in the UK object to security cameras (although there is considerable dislike of traffic cameras). If anything people seem to feel reassured by the presence of cameras. I believe that the statistics suggest that introducing cameras into an area will move crime elsewhere. That is, crime falls locally but goes up in nearby camera-free areas. As regards the other point, there certainly have been many notorious crimes where video tape was at least part of the basis for conviction, notably the Bulger case, where two boys kidnapped and murdered a small child. In fact the only complaint I recall hearing recently about cameras was from someone upset that the police couldn't track down the person who stole their back, which had been locked outside a police station, right in front of a security camera. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 ---------- CHANGE OF ADDRESS: I'm no longer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------
