On Tuesday 11 Sep 2007 11:03 pm, ashok _ wrote:

> do you have any statistics to this effect... that cameras have reduced
> or prevented
> crime ?]

Yes

http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bb.htm
"The statistics show that video surveillance can improve security. With 90 % 
of banks now fitted with cameras, 50 % of robbers are identified and arrested 
within two years. Thanks to video surveillance in the Paris metro, 83 % of 
incidents are now detected, and arrests have risen by 36 %. The use of this 
technology in department stores has reduced shoplifting by two thirds. "

But what is more interesting is that shoplifting is done by shop-staff in 
about  third of cases, and surveillance affects their privacy and is used to 
watch them. A potential shoplifting staff member would have everything to 
gain by protesting that his privacy is being violated.

I note that anyone who words in the "IT sector" works in a kind of fortress in 
which (as far as I know) he is not allowed to take in or take out data or 
data storage devices. His access to the world outside is limited by firewalls 
and his communication could be monitored by a system geared to do that.

This kind of monitoring is done by the employer in a private company, and not 
by the police. Now surely an educated and well paid person should not be 
monitored in this way. Is this employee surveillance ineffective in 
preventing crime? Is this intrusion of privacy necessary at a all?

I work in an environment in which nothing is monitored and have no idea how it 
feels to be honest and yet considered dishonest by default. I would like to 
see more security systems so I do not lose my cellphone, watch or money when 
I change into theater clothes and attend to an emergency. Some employees are 
surely the culprits in the absence of members of the public in the areas in 
which such losses occur, and they need to be identified. The loss of privacy 
that entails is acceptable to me.

shiv







>
> I think surveillance cameras acting as a crime preventive is really a
> misnomer....
>
> half the surveillance cameras in europe are probably there because of
> EU regulations
> and requirements... On the the other hand, take a look at south
> africa, one of the most
> heavily surveiled countries, yet the cities have crime rates rivaling
> rio di janiero...

Reply via email to