Cameras Are A Great Thing
Last Friday, Britain released photos taken from British surveillance footage from their subway stations and on the bus in which the bombs failed to detonate properly. After only one week of heavy British raids and hard work, all four suspects from the 7/21 events have been taken into custody, as well as many other suspected terrorist plotters and supporters.
Britain's system of security has proven itself to one that works when trying to capture terrorists. So how come in places like NYC have no cameras been installed. In lieu of 7/7 and 7/21, NYC finally announced last Saturday plans to spending between $150-$250 mil on new security cameras for their stations. The MTA also has received a few bids already from companies looking for the large contract. Something that I am curious about is why it took so long for cameras to be installed in the first place. While London has over 6,000 of these, NY has less than 20. Did they think that terrorists were not going to bomb trains? They did in Spain in 2004.
These cameras are proven to work and still are the best way to monitor train stations, in addition to some police presence.
posted by Anonymous at 10:21 AM
5 Comments:
They really should have picked this up from Israel, which has an amazingly high number of cameras in the Old City. They had to after so many stabbings. I'm sure NY's people in charge went to Israel and learned from them shortly after 9/11. There's no excuse why they haven't done this. Great topic and post! Love the new blog!
7/30/2005 7:32 PM
It's about privacy vrs security.
It can be taken too far. Although I would be for security cameras in such public places such as airports etc, it makes me feel uneasy about the future.
"Britain's Big Brother:
As surveillance grows, so does concern about privacy in the closely watched nation
Houston Chronicle | April 12 2004
LONDON -- Day after day, and sometimes late into the night, Felix Codrington watches the people of Wandsworth.
The 48-year-old is one of three local government officials charged with monitoring the 567 cameras that scan the streets and other public areas of the London borough.
Sitting on a swivel chair in a dimly lit room, Codrington scrutinizes the rows of screens on the wall in front of him, looking for suspicious behavior. A couple of youths loiter near an ATM, and he zooms in. When they move on, he turns his attention to another screen, where shoppers are browsing in a street market.
"We don't miss much," says Codrington, twiddling the joystick on his desk. "We've got cameras all over the place now."
The same goes for the rest of Britain. Over the last three years, the number of closed-circuit television cameras here has quadrupled to more than 4 million, making this the most watched country in the world, experts say. [...]"
7/30/2005 8:50 PM
esther:
i didn't know Israel has cameras up. i was planning to go with my family 4 years ago, but tensions were with Palestinians really escaled, where day after day there were more reports of suicide bombings. it became an issue, and we decided to stay here in the US for fear we might be caught in the middle of it.
warren:
you should, and if esther doesn't, know i am a social liberal, and lean right on other issues. but even i do not have a problem with cameras in public areas, especially where they are needed. i wouldn't see the problem with it being outside. if cameras are used in banks, stores, etc., mostly to help catch thieves and criminals, what's the difference if their in a building or on the outside of a building watching a street corner. if you are not doing anything wrong, i would see no reason why you would have a problem.
people who would argue that it goes against the unwritten right to privacy really have no legal grounds to back it up. the right to privacy, seen through 'Mapp V Ohio' protects a person's right to privacy in one's home, yet there is nothing mentioned about public property. also, in the situation of a cop pulling you over, they can search A) you, B.) things in plain view, but not your closed compartments (unless they have a warrant or very good suspicions). this also displays, in a way, what the courts have determined as public and private property.
in an odd way, the article talks about big brother in London; in "1984", London was under control of the party and big brother. eerie how things play out.
7/30/2005 9:41 PM
DM,
Have you ever noticed the George washinton quote at the top left of my blog?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~ George Washington
I don't have a privacy hank up, its just that governments that move in this direction trend to continue to usurp even more intrusive power.
I see this as a necessary step but it still makes me uneasy.
7/31/2005 1:43 AM
warren:
i know where your coming from on this. i don't think that our government would continue to take away privacy. too many people would fight it in federal courts, most assuredly the ACLU. the Supreme Court would also be likely to rule any intrusion on privacy in the home/vehicle unconstitutional. Americans, unlike the '1984' world of the big brother society, would speak out against any violation of Constitutional rights.
7/31/2005 10:08 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home