Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Typical
Word has it that Congressional Representatives, seeking to demonstrate that they are doing something to prevent domestic terrorist attacks, are considering installation of more surveillance cameras, particularly near mass transit systems such as subways and trains. Of course, such cameras did not deter the bombings in London nor have they deterred crime in London in general. Such a directive from Congress would be a folly, a waste of money and resources, and it would accomplish nothing except provide marketing propaganda for re-election purposes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Such a directive from Congress would be a folly, a waste of money and resources, and it would accomplish nothing except provide marketing propaganda for re-election purposes."
As you note in the BLOG posting, it probably will not deter crime or prevent a terrorist attack but it may aid in the investigation of said crimes as it is beginning to do in London. Tracing the movements and identities (aided by the CCTVs) could provide valuable assistance in preventing future crimes. Hard to say. However, having the CCTV installed here could provide some sort of benefit, even if it is after the fact. So to say it would accomplish nothing is a bit exaggerated, now don't ye think?
A folly? Yeah probably. Leave it to Congress to make a folly out of just about anything ;)
Yea, I agree that I overstated the position. More clearly stated, it would accomplish nothing as far as preventing a terrorist attack, which is what we'd really like to try and do. It is also what members of Congress are likely to claim that the system is for when they propose it. Unfortunately, devoting money towards what will become an investigative tool after the fact diverts limited funds towards preventing an attack in the first place.
"it would accomplish nothing as far as preventing a terrorist attack, which is what we'd really like to try and do."
As previously mentioned, the information gathered from these CCTVs may (and I emphasize "may") prevent other ones in the future (though I can see how people could be skeptical about this). So to say that it would accomplish nothing in the way of preventing an attack is a slight bit overstated.
I don't think there is any amount of money that can be spent that will totally prevent a terrorist attack (such as someone blowing themselves up in a bus) regardless of the amount or how the money is spent. I just don't see how we can completely stop anyone willing to commit one of these atrocities. But we need to look at ways to try to prevent at least some of them, keeping in mind that the goal is total prevention; a noble though impossible goal as it may be.
Overall, I think it would be a net benefit to invest the monies in CCTV for public areas such as train stations, etc. I suspect that the money required for the investment, if it was spent for other (anti terrorist) programs, would still not entirely prevent an attack anyhow. So why not take a look at CCTV? Maybe we can learn from the mistakes of our British friends on the uses of CCTV.
Congressional grand standing aside, I think it is a good idea overall and I can't agree (entirely) that it would accomplish "nothing" in the way of prevention. Would it prevent all attacks? No. Could it prevent some attacks? Perhaps. Is it the best use of limited funds? Not sure but I wouldn't rule out the investment, no matter how Congress chooses to ballyhoo the benefits.
Cheers! :)
Anon,
We agree that terrorist attacks are not totally preventable.
Our experience with CCTV in London is the only data we have on the subject. CCTV did not prevent the terrorist attacks. Indeed, it has not prevented crime. As to my comment about "nothing" being done: there's no way to know it's overstated without having a conversation with terrorists about whether or not cameras have given them pause.
I agree with you that CCTV might be good money spent, but only if we look at it as an investigative tool after the fact. However, I'd like to view a public debate on the topic as to what the cost in real dollars is for such a tool versus the cost to loss of privacy and what we gain from the tool. I'd also like to hear from people if said funds would be better spent on investigative work against terrorists.
In short, I'd like to have more open discussions on where our money is going and what sort of price are we willing to pay for "security" (both figuratively and monetary pricing).
Post a Comment