Security Cameras On Streets to Fight Crime

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I do not think such as thing would be unreasonable IF it is used properly since streets are public. But can they be used properly? Is all too easy to abuse?

[scuba steve]

In Britain it's a very abused system, the idea is sound but not when you have 40-60% of the worlds CCTV cameras in one of the worlds smallest countries.

[Amnesiac]

In Britain it's a very abused system, the idea is sound but not when you have 40-60% of the worlds CCTV cameras in one of the worlds smallest countries.

At least they're able to catch cat abusers! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI78v48HFkg)

But seriously, CCTV cameras should be reserved for the more crime-prone parts of cities. There's no need to put government cameras in million-dollar-home neighborhoods where the residents have security surrounding their mansions.

[DarkHorses]

I think it would make sense if they were used in cities and areas that are prone to crime, like the bad parts of Detroit for instance, where there's a lot of shootings and stuff. But if you put them in areas that are generally safe then there's really no point, and it's on the verge of just putting them there to spy for no reason. At first I thought it was kind of an invasion of privacy, but you shouldn't be doing things that would draw negative attention to you in public anyways. If you stick to the law and aren't doing anything wrong it shouldn't matter to you.

[INFERNO]

I think it would be abused if the cameras were placed in more private or personal places. Having public cameras are fine because it is a place everyone can be in and people aren't doing personal things. They're not so detailed though that they'll monitor each person's conversations and actions in immense detail so if the person mumbles something under their breath to someone, that could be seen. Having them placed in especially high crime and violent areas can be good because it can give solid evidence of the culprit. However, placing cameras in such areas also means that they would have a higher chance of being broken.

[Sage]

Setting up such cameras would only compel me to vandalize and destroy them, two things I'd never do without them floating around.

[steve1234]

I hate the idea of being watched by cameras everywhere I go. I live in Britain, and their are cameras everywhere. If you get the tube up to London, there will be cameras on the streets you walk up to the station, loads of cameras in the station, cameras in the train, cameras in the station you get off, cameras everywhere on the streets of London, and cameras all on London's buses. Basically EVERYWHERE!

But, surely it shouldn't be a problem If you have nothing to hide! which is why i'm not too bothered by it, although my problem is if the cameras ever get used for the wrong reasons, for example by criminals, or if they are put in private places.

[scuba steve]

There are cities in the English midlands that have actually taken CCTV sureveilance to a step up. In their highstreet straights they have 24/7 skeleton employee monitors who have access to mega phones accross the sweep that they are allowed to use to call on people who have done the simplist things as littering. Thought's of the movie Demolition Man spring to mind...

[Sith Lord 13]

There are cities in the English midlands that have actually taken CCTV sureveilance to a step up. In their highstreet straights they have 24/7 skeleton employee monitors who have access to mega phones accross the sweep that they are aloud to use to call on people who have done the simplist things as littering. Thought's of the movie Demolition Man spring to mind...

That reminds me of The Giver. Or 1984. Kind of scary. We're living in a realm of dystopian novels coming true.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Honestly why spend money on expensive cameras that are only going to get destroyed?