We don’t have the technology to spy on the whole U.S. with real-time cameras at all. Spy and Google images photos are not the same thing as real-time monitoring.
This is an interesting case of a Fermi Problem if you want to estimate the total cost. The classic version of that question is 'How Many Piano Tuners Are There in New York City?". You aren’t allowed to look in the Yellow Pages or search it on Google. You have to figure it out based on knowledge that you know or can estimate in steps. Mistakes in the estimates tend to cancel each other other so that you get a semi-accurate answer.
Lets try it here:
How many acres are there in the whole U.S.? = about 2 billion
How many of those are populated enough that they may benefit in some way from full-time camera footage? = about 10%
That leaves us with about 200 million acres that need coverage.
How many cameras does it take to cover an acre (roughly the size of a football field) at the level of detail needed? = About 10
That leaves us with 2 billion cameras in total needed.
How much do each of these weatherproof cameras cost to acquire and professionally mount? = About $1000 a piece on the low end.
The costs so far are at $2 trillion dollars for acquisition.
How much does it cost to monitor, maintain, build data storage facilities for and analyze and respond to threats presented by the cameras? = $3000 a year per camera.
Total cost for the first year if it could be implemented instantaneously is $8 trillion dollars. Ongoing costs after that are $6 trillion dollars a year. That is a little less than twice what the Federal government spending on everything combined right now. In other words, if we disbanded the military, defunded all social security as well as Medicare, all foreign aid, the FAA, EPA, transportation department and every other single federal department, we would be a little over half-way there to achieving your personal security goal. Does that sound reasonable to you?
***You may balk at some of my cost estimates but I tried to make them at the very low end. My profession is IT software and infrastructure. The cost would likely be much higher than the estimates.
Honestly, that’s the only part for which I can see an objection. I don’t know your neighbor nor why he was assaulted, and you haven’t given us enough information to make an informed opinion. I’m just presenting an alternative to your neighbor being a victim of random assaulter. Other scenarios include but aren’t limited to: mistaken identity, spurned lover, cuckoled spouse; guy off his meds, etc.
Those other things I said: Dude watch the news, I doubt I’d have to spend more than 5 minutes on Youtube to demonstrate criminals committing crimes in full view of a camera. The rest would start to fall into GD territory but I have no doubt I can back that up too.
It’s not currently feasible, in my opinion. As others have linked, it doesn’t seem to be doing much in London, because the people using the system aren’t using it right, and that’s a factor that’s unlikely to change much. Technology, however, is improving. Face-recognition algorithms, and other computer systems that will someday be able to scan camera feeds automatically and recognize crimes in progress, automatically dispatching officers to the scene as soon as something happens. That technology will become a reality…but it’s still a number of years off. Once it happens, camera coverage will prove much more effective, but until it happens, it’s better not to spend vast fortunes on setting up and maintaining camera networks that will be largely ineffective.
All that money spent, and you’ve got a system that can still be defeated by a $5 ski mask. :rolleyes:
While I do believe that CCTV can have a part to play in crime prevention, it’s only a small part.
The problem is, for a camera system to work effectively, the setup would would be a) hugely expensive (see above) and b) an Orwellian nightmare. Imagine a future where not only were all your movements tracked, but thanks to facial recognition*, the government (pick your agency, I’m sure they’d all want a go at it) would be able to know where you were at all times. And that’s before they start funding the system by selling this data to advertisers…**
I can see a lot of people having problems with that. :eek:
*For facial recognition to work, everyone in the country would need to be photographed/scanned for the ID database. So you can add on another billion or three for that program.
**Reading that paragraph back, I sound like some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. But for a CCTV system to work like Dibbs suggests, I honestly can’t see any other way for it to work.
Just a friendly tip. Don’t ever assert the claim of your “God-given common sense.” If you actually have any, endeavor to display it for others to infer.
That way, if you ever step on your dick, people won’t go around saying, “Look at that! God-given common sense boy stepped on his dick!”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument is like saying “Well, some folks wear their seatbelts and still die. Therefore, seatbelts aren’t such a good idea.”
Lol. Well, I can’t say you don’t have a point. However, I like going there at times because it sorta lets others know that at the very bedrock of my God-given thinking – i.e. that all the fibers and stuff that constitute me as a validated being created by the spark of the Divine – dares to wager the whole wad … and that the likelihood that I’m right is very great, and that anyone challenging me runs the serious risk of looking foolish and feeling humiliated if they continue to proceed!
A rattle snake and me are feared, and I like it that way.:rolleyes:
Disclaimer: If my attempt at humor is coming off as being corny, it’s because I haven’t had enough coffee to clear-out the cobwebs from my nap.:rolleyes:
I guess asserting those qualities in yourself IS the way to go (for you, at any rate). I certainly don’t feel like I’ve been called upon to infer any of them at this point. But it’s early days yet.
No, the arguement presented is “if vastly more people who wear seatbelts die in auto accidents that those who do not, perhaps seatbelts aren’t such a bright idea”. If vastly more cameras never help solve a crime than do, maybe cameras aren’t the answer.
Look, I get it. You want monitored CCTV on every piece of public property in the United States. Fime, as my dad always said “You are old enough that your wants won’t hurt you”. IOW, you can want anything. The facts in this case prove it to be a bad idea, as several posters have pointed out, but you can still want it. Just don’t substitute opinions for facts as you lay out your argument.
I think “CCTV encourages crime” is a different claim from “CCTV doesn’t help catch criminals” (besides, at least part of the value is deterrence, which is hard to measure).
I’m torn on the subject. I’m uncomfortable with the idea, but any objection I can come up with is fighting the hypothetical, but “the innocent have nothing to fear” is not something I want to accept. On the practical side, though, I doubt installing cameras would be worse than useless.
You don’t get it. I said in an earlier post that I’d much prefer to not have an Orwellian society with cameras all over the place, but, that it seems inevitable and I can’t see why the idea ought not be “explored” to have them in as many public places as possible.
No matter what anyone says, I find the level of crime in this country nearly intolerable. Film 'em, capture 'em, lock 'em up!
Btw, your last (lecturing) sentence is as ridiculous as your attempt to say my rebuttal to kunilou wasn’t a good one, though it is my opinion.:eek:
How about 300 million smart phones? There are more cell phones in America that there are Americans, most of them have cameras. Let’s let those camera owners do the job.
History has shown that if you give any government far reaching intrusive powers they will eventually be abused.
That would be reason enough to object to a far reaching CCTV plan. But combine that with the fact that crime rates are already quite low historically, there are other less intrusive ways to address the problem, cost factors, and a lack of evidence for CCTV efficacy and I’d say your case is fairly weak.
if I were on the jury, & unless there were also cameras in the house showing him committing the crime, just an external camera showing him running away is not, in & of itself, enough to make me believe he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
So how many additional camera do we need to cover every corner of every room in every building on top of the outside cameras?
I actually don’t see the issue with CCTV covering all public spaces 24/7 AS LONG AS the government and law enforcement don’t use it to go on fishing expeditions for minor crimes.
No, you either misunderstood or mistated the argument.
I think it’s you who be confused! “I’d much prefer to not have an Orwellian societywith cameras all over the place” and “I can’t see why the idea ought not be “explored” to have them in as many public places as possible” are mutually exclusive.
People here offered cites and facts indicating it would be ineffective at best and abused at worst. You attempted to repfute those facts with opinions - it doesn’t work that way.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, whatever it may be, and to discuss it in depth here. Just don’t expect it to override facts.
