Toralf Lund wrote: > But I part from my earlier notes, what I meant to say is that > I only recall reading about cameras being used *after* a > crime was committed. > That does increase security somewhat, as it helps taking some > known culprits out of circulation, so as to speak, but not by > nearly as much as some would have you believe, I think.
They are probably used in the main to catch people who have committed crimes after the event - those who don't realise they are being watched and those by either stupidity, drugs or alcohol who don't care. It does put off crime, sadly it doesn't get rid of it but moves it to where such cameras are fewer. So are these cameras worth it? I believe so. The fact that many people go on to commit similar crimes is not the fault of the cameras, they merely record the events and how such evidence is used and what punishments happen as a result of this evidence is another matter entirely. Like most things created to deter crime, there will always be those out to defeat it and I expect in due course something additional to cameras will be in place, which will further erode personal freedom to those already opposed to them. It might make a lot of photography redundant in a decade or so. You'll be able to log in to the internet and see a live picture of any street you want - within reason... Malcolm
