Yeah, I was initially opposed to the implementation of wide video coverage of public spaces by surveilance cameras, but I've changed my mind and now think this is a great idea for many of the same reasons I think that ubiquitousness of camcorders/cellcams is great as it acts as break on all sorts of malfeasance and enables us to effectively catch/prosecute those who break the law anyway.

I just don't want the cameras looking through my window or out of my TV.

Yeah, I agree with the point that was made earlier when you posted on this; I'm ok with not having a rigid expectation of personal privacy in public places.

And when the splodey-dopes start wearing masks on the trains, we might get over that whole "random search" thing!

I think a good rule of thumb is that as long as the camera only sees what a policeman would also be permitted to see (i.e. public areas), then you're OK.

Nick - Nicely put.

I agree, NickS's rule of thumb *is* a pretty good bright-line test for this sort of thing, isn't it?

I'm sure the story of the investigation will be an interesting one when everything comes out, but so far, looks like it's awfully hard to argue with the results. I figured the British investigators would do well, but not *this* well, or this quickly.

Interview with British Muslim

"Butt: They have no covenant. As far as I'm concerned, the Islamic hukum (order) that I follow, says that a person has no covenant whatsoever with the country in which they were born."

Well then, perhaps since you don't care which country you were born in, you won't mind if we strip you of your citizenship and send you overseas to the third world shitholes you seem to hold dear.

"Butt: I feel absolutely nothing for this country. I have no problem with the British people… but if someone attacks them, I have no problem with that either."

Just so you know, we feel exactly the same way about your religion.

I think that's the basic argument in favor of them. A cop (or civilian) could see you in public, so does it matter that there's a camera there?

And I know there are complaints that some cameras accidentally capture someone's window, but those sorts of things can be corrected.

By definition, we can't know what attacks the cameras did deter.

And it's not just deterring attacks; if cameras make terrorists choose alternate routes from apartment to safehouse and other pain-in-the-ass sort of stuff, they do contribute to counter-terrorism there, too.

A lot of security systems really don't provide security per se, so much as a pain-in-the-ass factor. Car security systems,, for example.

The big caveat about CCTV systems is the obvious one - without immense manpower or an immensely powerful & accurate computer (which is still beyond our reach, I think), only by sheer luck will you be able to use the live feed to stop a criminal act prior to commission or immediately after.

However, it's a much simpler (albeit slow) task to go through the footage after the fact and nab the perps in question, as appears to have happened in London.

I'm only concerned that CCTV gets pushed as a solution to prevent attacks, when it's most likely an after-the-fact tool. (that, and I have visions of more Homeland Security pork being handed out in ways that don't give us much of a leg up)

"And I know there are complaints that some cameras accidentally capture someone's window, but those sorts of things can be corrected."

And (for the most part) that sort of thing would be OK for a flesh-and-blood cop, too. If a cop is walking down the street, and sees suspicious activity through the window of a private home, he can check it out.

Let me revise that - I write under the assumption of CCTV being used for big systems, aka the London Underground, or the NYC subway system.

The smaller the area covered, the better the likelihood of a live feed being useful (assuming someone's watching it at all).

I increasingly think I should write a book, Everything I Ever Needed To Know About the Millennium War, I Learned from *Casablanca*.

Specifically, in this case, this line from Renault: "We musn't underestimate American blundering. I was with them when they blundered into Berlin in 1918. "

I think, for instance, our current airport security regime is a big, obnoxious example of American blundering, being about ten times as stupid and ten times as wasteful as it has to be, and far less effective than it should be. *But*, all that said, I think it has an effect. If I was a terrorist, and wanted to replicate 9/11, I'd look at the blundering Americans and think "Yeah, I could maybe pull this off... but... jeez, there sure are a *lot* of those blundering Americans around here, there's a decent chance one of them will stumble across something." And I'd focus my efforts on just about anything *other* than airports.

Though I still don't quite get why we don't just initiate the following two-step program:
1. Ask "So, how do the Israelis handle this problem?"
2. Do that.

David,

Yes, but that's a brief and occasional intrusion. It's different to have a spy camera pointed to your window 24 hours a day. I wouldn't want that. I don't think anyone would.

Though I still don't quite get why we don't just initiate the following two-step program:
1. Ask "So, how do the Israelis handle this problem?"
2. Do that.

So, instead of asking, "What would Jesus do?" It should be, What would Moishe do? Okay.

Ace,
Right, good point, and the sort of "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue our constitutional system handles pretty well.

Just don't tell anyone that the Israelis use profiling.

Shocking!

Eh, Steyn claims the cameras are encouraging all shady characters to go around with hoodies.

Guess these terrorists haven't gotten that memo yet.

I'd be much more accepting of increased surveillance and policing at home if our enemies were also being pursued to their lairs. If we were vigorously rolling up Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, and China, and if surveillance and policing were acknowledged to be focused on muslim men, 17 to 40 years old, then surveillance and policing would seem to be sincerely intended as just another part of an effective whole. However, given our tiptoe-through-the-tulips approach to making war, the emphasis on cameras and searches--random, pointless searches--just causes me to reflect that for rulers, it's evidently a lot more fun to dominate your subjects than to serve them and protect them.

Arafel

CCTV sold me not just for terrorism, but ordinary crime.

It deters, and it provides absolutely pure, deadnuts fingering evidence for finding suspects or getting a guaranteed case for prosecution.

Like the kiddie killer that was seen grabbing the little girl found raped and butchered a few days later. The parking lot the abduction was done in had a CCTV for security that showed his face, his car, where he gripped the girl's arm that had pre-mortem bruises precisely there. Think of how many more would be saved with more cameras!

I did a jury duty stint where the cops had videotaped drug transactions and 2 thugs had refused to plead. The shysters tried to voire dire the jury pool to get an indication of how the thugs would fare..".do you believe what you see on security videotape?" "Yep". "Would you consider a taped exchange of something proof of drug sale" "Nope" Prosecutor: "Would you consider the 50 dollar bill you see exchanged for a baggie proof of something being sold that had value and the only baggie found on the buyer being an illicit drug something that might influence your decision?" "Yep". The questioning went that way for about 5 jurors before the shysters gave up and plead the case out for a 5+5 felony jail hitch.

As for terrorism, it makes absolute sense if you can see an action coming to stop it, or if they get a blow up Islamoid operation done .....you can have the Islamoid's face up in a few hours and plastered all over the planet, along with any still living Islamoid he might have been seen with.....rather than relying on weeks or months of forensic work to match body bits with a possible suspect.

I think the next step in public transit safety will be chemical sniffers - basically a stiff breeze that blows across folks and is then sampled. It will be tough to implement but I think it has the most potential because it is a lot faster and less intrusive then a bag check. Also, speaking as someone who used to play with plastic explosives for a living (1) The stuff always gets all over your hands and clothes, and is thus probably easier to detect than one might think and (2) I've had my big briefcase "checked" a number of times, and let's just say I could have gotten through with a pretty large device.

My English brothers have made a terrible error by letting so many Islamic dogs into their beautiful land. We are currently at the beginning stages of a war of civilizations. We must follow the lead of the Romans, and strike a death blow to the enemy civilization known as Islam. There is no peaceful coexistence with these evil prayerbots. Western Civilization must rise, rise and strike with extreme vigilance. When Hanibal invaded Rome through Spain and the Alps with his war elephants and tens of thousands of men, Rome retaliated in a manner fitting a great civilization. Carthage was destroyed and shall never be heard from again.