As long as the government does not abuse it. ???
Something is so bad that it needs this and that because I don’t want to leave or feel I can’t. (really?)
Hi! Opal
One human life is worth any amount of money or any cost to everyone else. ???
Insults do not win arguments no matter how hard gusnspot tries… Others have that tendency too.
Good, cost effective, unable to be abused by authority, not intrusive to 95% of the population, etc. ??? This is a hard hill to climb. IMO of course.
Tried to edit the post. I type too slow. Sorry for any perceived direction to a person and not at the ideas…
You’re arguing a false dichotomy, an all-or-nothing scenario.
Let’s try the bubble wrap analogy.
Fragile things are wrapped in bubble wrap to protect them from damage while being shipped. Therefore, wrapping everything in bubble wrap will elminate shipping damage.
The only problem with that conclusion is that it’s wrong. Bubble wrap does not protect against all damage. Moreover, some things are so unfragile that bubble wrap would add no protection. In addition, putting everything in bubble wrap would result in larger packages that have to be sorted by hand, therefore taking longer, costing more, and increasing the possibility of mishandling that would eliminate the savings of a few less items being damaged.
The answer is not to put cameras “in cow pastures and along beaches and everywhere else where (evil) people can go,” but to use tactics that are effective in the appropriate places. In some places that might be cameras, in some places live guards, in some places restricted access, etc.
To answer your question, if a person’s gonna be a brick then I guess no amount of cameras will be of any use.
I know in my own heart and mind the dude is guilty. His DNA on the pizza, his family saying he’s hostile and nuts, seeing him run down the alley, … . Yup; if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, … , it’s a duck! (But then that’s not what we’re focusing on here.)
You, sir, are the voice of reason.
Hmmm to paraphrase a line from Dirty Harry, “You know, I think you might have a point.”:eek:
What if access to the footage or live viewing requires a warrant or something similar?
There was a rape? Get the warrant and review all footage to see where the suspect came from and went. There have been a series of assaults on a specific street? Get a warrant and watch live so you can catch the perps in the act.
This would also hopefully prevent citizen harassment and fishing expeditions.
Ok, but why cant they be even lower?
Just to reassure people:
That’s what I meant by fighting the hypothetical. I endorse this, with the added proviso that they are careful to only cover public spaces. I’m skeptical that these restrictions would be kept to, but that’s a separate objection, I think I’m fine about the scenario laid out.
Though really, the existence of “minor crimes” already gives way too much power to the police, CCTV or no. If we can’t justify applying the penalty spelled out in law to literally every person who does something, every time they do it, either the penalty is too harsh or the thing shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.
Sure, but there may be diminishing returns. It’s may cost increasingly more to reduce the rates more. You need to calculate how much it’s going to cost (both monetarily and socially) and decide if there are better things to spend our money on.
I would be in favor of CCTV cameras in public spaces on 2 conditions: 1.) They deterred crime 2.) If we could trust the police not to abuse power. Condition 1 is debatable (also evidence from London suggests it may be false). As for condition 2, see the latest video of a police officer beating up or shooting an unarmed/fleeing black person, or cops pepper spraying peaceful protesters, or a cop stealing lobster, etc.
It sure would be nice if they were. The question is whether a gigantic investment in CCTV cameras would actually help anything.
And here’s a smiley for you: :rolleyes:
Doc, out.