Again, the Illusion of Security

Recent events in Boston bring this nonsensical approach to police work to the fore again:

• In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, which saw the use of footage from cell phones and closed circuit TV cameras to help identify the suspected bombers, pundits and elected officials alike have been singing the praises of urban camera networks—and suggesting that ever more such government surveillance is the key to stopping future attacks.
  
  But a closer look at the facts suggests just the opposite: Dispersed “Little Brother” monitoring by private cameras can provide many of the benefits of centralized “Big Brother” surveillance by governments—but without the public expense or risks to civil liberties

Boston has less than 60 law enforcement cameras under their control and the best video identifying the terrorists came from a private cameras system at a Lord and Taylor clothing store.

New York has over 3,000 cameras, not one of which prevented a car bomb being planted in Times Square a few years ago.  Chicago has any number depending on whom you believe and how many are actually functioning on any given day (but still, no one watching them). They have done zero to prevent crime and almost the same for solving a crime, merely placing a vehicle or person in the vicinity of a crime.

But nanny-staters still insist that all that is needed are more cameras and crime will cease to exist.  Usually, that means their cousin has a company that installs these things or a contact that sells them. It's nonsense and drains scarce dollars from actually hiring police.  Tiny Dancer is hiring cops back at time-and-one-half, and it isn't because he's cutting back on cameras - it's because Chicago found out the hard way that cops on the street prevent crime.