Hats and Privacy Vs Public Security

[carebear]

Others would be surprised that such charming places feel the need for that sort of security.

I'm continually dismayed by people thinking cameras somehow equal "security".

All they provide is a means of identifying a suspect after a crime has been committed, they do nothing to prevent the crime.

Preventing is security, apprehending after the fact is not.

The idea that adding even more cameras will prevent crime, where fewer cameras have failed, has been shown (by the UK's experience, among others) to be just as stupid as even a moment's thought would suggest.

When there are too many cameras to effectively monitor, any deterrent aspect that might exist vanishes, especially when simple, disposable workarounds (hats, masks, etc) exist. The minimum response time by authorities, even if they happen to see the crime in progress on camera, will (and does) provide a window to commit the crime and escape.

The recent Kitty Genovese-revisited case in Minnesota gives the lie to the idea that cameras have anything at all to do with "security".

More counter-productive smoke and mirrors by government and businesses so it seems they're "doing something" to "keep people safe".

 

[HadleyH]

Kishtu,

That would be 82 year old Mrs Wilbraham of Ely in Cambridgeshire. A pillar of the local community (chair of her Womens' Institute), an inspiration to generations (career school teacher) and threat to no-one.

Alan

That's sad, it really is. Why do that to her? I'm sure she didn't understand all the fuss ...what a shame!