Give up your liberty so you'll be able to see pictures of what the suicide bombers looked like on TV.

It is quite upsetting that people seem to be missing that point. The cameras in London did nothing to stop the bombers there. In the long run, this helps the terrorists with their PR and does nothing to protect people.

Rattle wrote:

Give up your liberty so you'll be able to see pictures of what the suicide bombers looked like on TV.

It is quite upsetting that people seem to be missing that point. The cameras in London did nothing to stop the bombers there. In the long run, this helps the terrorists with their PR and does nothing to protect people.

Oh goodness; who ever said the cameras in London were just to stop terrorists? How did we identify the people who failed to attack on July 21st? Oh yes, with CCTV. How do we solve other crimes? Yes, that's right, with cameras.

I am massively pro civil liberties and yet have no problems with blanket cameras; in the same way I would no problems with a police officer on every street. If the police officers/cameras stopped me in my day to day business then I would object but having lived in London all my life the cameras have NOT directly affected my life in an adverse way.

Oh goodness; who ever said the cameras in London were just to stop terrorists? How did we identify the people who failed to attack on July 21st? Oh yes, with CCTV. How do we solve other crimes? Yes, that's right, with cameras.

I am massively pro civil liberties and yet have no problems with blanket cameras; in the same way I would no problems with a police officer on every street. If the police officers/cameras stopped me in my day to day business then I would object but having lived in London all my life the cameras have NOT directly affected my life in an adverse way.

Let me put the laser beam on the usage of the word "blanket".. So far, this has been very ineffective. There are places where having camera has made sense. There are places its downright expected. I expect to be on camera when I'm walking around high profile areas that are likely targets for terrorist attacks and other crime. I don't have a problem with being on camera when I'm walking around buildings on the DC Mall or entering subways. This is reasonable.

However, I do not feel that every single square inch of every major city should be on camera, as is what many want. This is simply not effective for prevention, and usually only useful after the fact. It quickly becomes too much data to carve over in real-time. Blanketing a city is neither reasonable or useful, and too many people seem way to comfortable with starting down the slippery slope to a completely surveilled society.

I am certain that future events will prove me correct. This is ineffective for prevention.

Rattle wrote:

Oh goodness; who ever said the cameras in London were just to stop terrorists? How did we identify the people who failed to attack on July 21st? Oh yes, with CCTV. How do we solve other crimes? Yes, that's right, with cameras.

I am massively pro civil liberties and yet have no problems with blanket cameras; in the same way I would no problems with a police officer on every street. If the police officers/cameras stopped me in my day to day business then I would object but having lived in London all my life the cameras have NOT directly affected my life in an adverse way.

I am certain that future events will prove me correct. This is ineffective for prevention.

The trouble is I have real problems listening to your arguments when you suggest that cameras are ineffective because they did not prevent the London bombings. It's pointless and weak argument.

The trouble is I have real problems listening to your arguments when you suggest that cameras are ineffective because they did not prevent the London bombings. It's pointless and weak argument.

Blanket camera installations don't prevent terrorist attacks. They are being sold to the public as a method of preventing terrorist attacks, at which they are ineffective. Welcome to the slippery slope. Where is the weak argument?

You don't have to listen to my arguments. That is your right. I'm not forcing them on you, but I will express them.

There are inherent problems with large scale video monitoring. Even small scale video monitoring has issues. Camera operator fatigue is the big one. Studies have shown that an operators effectiveness in catching suspicious activity or materials when watching monitors starts to trail off drastically after about 15 minutes. This is why they constantly rotate x-ray operators at airport screening points.

You previously said that you don't have a problem with a police officer on every corner. Neither do I. This would be more effective. It is not subject to the same fatigue problem. A human sitting on a corner being observant has a much longer fatigue cycle than a human sitting watching several monitors. A police officer on every corner and a bank of cameras on every corner is not the same thing.