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.

RE: Boing Boing: NYPD installing lots of surveillance cams -- but don't snap back.