Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson...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.

yes,on paper it looks nice overall.A camera has no impact on a neigborhood 5 miles away.(affirmed by ponyones description of hardened security in specific places and crime going elsewhere)

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.

Yes,once again,secure on paper.The article said no such thing(about cameras on low crime rate streets and corners...)Also if you read the article "Cameras are not routinely monitored, and video is stored for a brief period, to be watched only if a crime is reported."...

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.

Yes,lowered...on those streets that are monitored.I have nothing to say about the added prevention cameras can bring,but the camera will do nothing to save you in a attack.YOU will still need to fend for yourself and either eliminate the theat or run to saftey.

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

And all I was saying is that they are not the 'super savers' that some make them out to be(not that you do).

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."

How many blocks in chicago or new orleans?...they are NOT putting them on the average streets(those with statistically low crime rates)and why would they?They are average and that is not the goal of law enforcment or the state/federal budget.Only 240 of the cameras in new orleans are operating and all 'hot spots' no doubt.

I was being fascicious.

you were?No kidding...

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.


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."

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v101/fa/n028/cam.securitycam.corey.html

also "Many CCTV situations promote a false sense of security. A good example is the use of "dummy" or false cameras. This may lead an individual to believe the area is being monitored and any criminal activity will generate an immediate response. Signage might also lead to a false sense of security. Signs which convey a message the cameras are utilized for the "safety and security" of patrons can lead to potential liability problems if the public believes cameras are monitored at all times and help is on the way if they become victimized. Use of "dummy" cameras, or not monitoring real cameras due to staff shortages or restrictions can create liability. It is important to determine the exact purpose of the camera and monitoring procedures. Share that information with those who may be impacted by it, generally the employees."form http://www.opkansas.org/_Bus/Business_Safety/cctv.cfm