Sunday, October 4, 2009

Big Brother in Sacramento



How is it possible that surveillance like this does not help fight crime? I've heard this claim before that the reports indicate no benefit, but I have to say I find it hard to believe. What do you think?

What exactly is the danger of this kind of thing? Is the lack of privacy something to be feared? Why? Is it part of the overall trend towards fascism in America, as we discussed before?

Actually, I tend to believe everything the Liberal Viewer has to say. But, this one makes me wonder. Do you think there are reports that come to the opposite conclusion, ones that show the benefit of surveillance?

7 comments:

  1. Mike, you have only to look at the statistics on crime and surveillance comeing from the UK to see the actual impotence of this kind of surveillance as a deterrent to crime.

    I have a story for you:
    the cover up of an investigation into the possible and very probable execution of an innocent man in Texas by Governeor Perry.
    This, coming at this time and the obviouus manipulation of the foresnic panel by Perry is political dynamite!

    http://rawstory.com/2009/10/
    governor-accused-innocent-
    execution/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I totally agree.

    Of course what's the difference with the studies done that show these cameras don't work, compared to the studies that show that gun control also doesn't work?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How is it possible that surveillance like this does not help fight crime? I've heard this claim before that the reports indicate no benefit, but I have to say I find it hard to believe. What do you think?

    What I think (some may have predicted this) is that the wrong question is being asked. A vastly more pertinent question, to my way of thinking, would be: is a reduction in crime--even a large reduction, in violent crime--worth living in a surveillance state? I answer with a resounding "NO!!!"

    I don't mean to be too hard on those arguing about the uselessness of such cameras as a crime-fighting tool--such arguments seem to gain more traction with the public than my liberty nut arguments do.

    Good for the ACLU on this--I've had a good many disagreements with them, but I'm 100% behind them on this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Surveillance does a much better job of solving crimes rather than preventing crimes, although a cost benefit analysis of surveillance might show that the cost is much higher than extra officers and detectives. In spite of what Hollywood shows, criminals don't always look directly into the camera, the view may be hazy/not well lit, the camera may not be pointing the right way, and video enhancement technology is nothing like what is shown on tv (where a 10pixel x 10 pixel of a head in a darkened alley is blown up on a 50 inch screen and then "enhanced" to a crystal clear daylight image that you can count whiskers on). I have no problem with private corporations spending all they want on surveillance. I do have a problem with government saying it is there to keep us safe (as they have done in the UK).

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about we put cameras in every congressional members' office and in the halls of congress and next to the water coolers, so we can keep tabs on who's taking bribes, diddling the interns and using his public position for personal gain.

    If that were ever proposed, you'd hear officials at all levels of government start screaming about privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey MikeB,

    How many crimes have been solved by London's CCTV system?

    I'll give you a hint

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm?lsf

    ReplyDelete