Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartIt makes perfect sense...average streets/corners are abundant and plentiful.You spend more time on them.You have less a chance to fall off walking 5 feet of really thin rope than 5 miles of really thick(please don't over anylyze that analogy).

I understand what your analogy means, but you are wrong. Your average streets do not have NEARLY as much crime as those that are high in crime, thus, reducing crime on those streets would reduce OVERALL crime. Reducing OVERALL crime means a crime reduction for the entire city, making a city more secure as a whole. Also, the article was about the expansion of camera usage, and their BEING on your average street corner.

eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced.Heres what I said:quote "No,your not safer with those cameras...you'll still get mugged and the guy will probly get away..even if he gets caught,its no thanks to the cameras."How will the camera save you?Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd,but it won't stop an attack hence "your not safer".And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase,but the camera dosn't deserve a pat on the lens.

So, the odds that you're attacked is lowered. Again, the chance of the criminal being caught is increased, thus lowering incentive. However, the camera will not make you safer? Statistically it clearly does. Cameras cannot stop bullets in midair, but neither can hospitals, and no one says hospitals can't prevent you from dying due to a gunshot wound.

Life isn't a "world's most shocking video's" show where every crook is identified and caught by surveillance cameras and everything ends well.Mabey this was misunderstood some posts ago?

Did I say every criminal would be caught? All I said was that more cameras would catch/deter more criminals, it's pretty obvious.

There is no argument that they reduce crime rates.

Excepting the statistic proof, of course. Also, let's look at what you have to say:
"eh..I never said criminal activity isn't reduced."
"Your 'chance' of being attacked is lowerd"
"And again the 'chance' of the criminal being caught/identified will increase"

The SUBJECT(which seems to change in threads if you notice)will never come to pass(that being your average street/corner nook and cranny being monitored).Why?Because they are 'average'.

It will never come to pass?

"Chicago is working on plans to link more than 2,000 public surveillance cameras in a network that would use sophisticated software to alert authorities to potential crimes.

"New Orleans is installing a sophisticated crime-fighting system of bulletproof cameras, each capable of eyeing an eight-block area. So far, about 240 of the proposed 1,000 cameras are in operation."

That's a pretty large number of cameras for NONE of them to be on an "average" street corner. Don't be thick, they're clearly putting these in less criminally active areas than the criminal "hotspots."

hmmm..in what case would someone do that :confused: (mabey extremely drunk..?)

I was being fascicious.

Your point is:Why would cameras reduce awareness?Because they promote a false sense of security.

Prove that point to me. Just because a camera is on a post doesn't mean anyone will lower their guard. I know I would not. Prove that I would.

I personally,will not rely on a 'reduced chance' of being attacked and be unaware of my surroundings,possible threats e.c.t."Oh my GAWD,i'm shocked that something like that could happen.I don't believe it!There was a camera there!" :eek:

So you wouldn't, and I wouldn't. I also doubt Raskolnikov would. PonyOne doesn't seem to be willing to lower his guard. That's four people who won't be unaware of their surroundings when walking around outside. I guess you've disproven your own point by refusing to cite examples. There's a difference between "feeling safer" and "letting your guard down."