Surveillance Cameras

[anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com]

Tim May wrote:

>Today's newspaper (SJ Mercury News) carried a long article about
>increasingly ubiquitous video surveillance cameras, and singled out the
>U.K. as a place that is leading. 

There was a news report on this a couple of months ago.  In addition to
the government surveillance cameras, when there's a major crime in the U.K. 
the cops have started collecting all the security tapes from offices, gas 
stations, railway stations, etc, etc in the surrounding area and scanning 
them to try to find the culprits.  The interesting things that they said 
were :

	1. The cameras only reduce crime rates locally, as the criminals
	   simply move to areas without cameras.
	2. The real criminals (e.g. IRA bombers) know how to disguise 
	   themselves well enough that the cameras cannot easily be used 
	   to identify them.
	3. The cameras are often pointed in the wrong direction, not
	   switched on or aren't recording.  A good example is the London
	   club which was bombed a year or so back.  The bomber walked
	   up to the entrance and placed the bomb directly in view of
	   the security camera.  It was switched off at the time ...
	4. Even when people are recorded, the resolution is often too
	   poor to identify them.

So it appears that the cameras are great for arresting people who urinate 
in bushes, but useless for catching real criminals. 

Alice de 'nonymous ...
 
                                  ...just another one of those...
 
 
P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.