Sheelagh's coming out!
Hypothetical sequence of events:
1. An announcement
2. A history relating to the announcement
3. The reason for the announcement and
4. the final summary
Actual sequence of events:
Sheelagh Fromer, a female human being is, was and has always been the writer of this blog.
The end.
Remember i've always maintained this blog isn't about me; its about all of you and how we can make this world a better place for all of us.
Recently in my excursions on the inter tubes i came across a blurb for a piece about the use of surveillance cameras. The short introduction details a point i have made over and over here, one that speaks to my optimistic side. The one that says the sky isn't falling in, crime isn't as all pervasive as you might be led to think, there is more good going on than bad and improvements have been made. You don't need to give up your liberty for security.
Apparently, England gets the award for the most surveillance cameras of any country in the world. One statistic said there was a camera watching for every 14 people; gathering information 24 hours a day 7 days a week(as long as they are functioning). But have they made a difference in crime?
Not really.
Cameras record details that are in its immediate view. They do not prevent crime and rarely do they solve crime. They merely record details. Mostly they are a device to produce a fictional feeling of security for those invested in having them record activity. They collect a lot of data, they track the movements of the general public, but too few humans are available to review it and crime goes on.
Cameras do not reduce crime, cameras record crime. Mayor Giuliani increased the police force on the streets of New York and guess what? Crime dropped to the point where it became one of the safer cities in the western world. England placed 4.2 million cameras all over the country and guess what? Violent crime continued to increase, while petty crime went down. No camera will prevent your mugging, rape or murder if someone is bent on doing it. More often than not the camera is malfunctioning anyway.
Studies have shown that increased lighting and more police on the beat reduce crime.
Rather than tackling crime at the root (poor housing, lack of jobs, parental problems, drugs) installing a camera squander's public and private money on surveillance. Cameras need maintenance; they need upgrading and cleaning to ensure good picture quality; and add in the cost of having operators to man them in order to watch the images to alert the police of potential criminal activity.
i read a number of articles on the use of surveillance cameras, pro and con and this comment (snark)at the end of one article had me laughing.
The reason for the cameras is that today fewer people believe in God.Hahahahah....God is dead so we need cameras......where in the world do people come up with these things?
In the old days there was a general consensus that He was looking over your shoulder watching all your actions. Now that God is dead (in the opinions of the liberal elite anyway) we are deemed to need actual cameras watching over us to deter crime and keep us subservient.
There is the argument in favor of cameras that says they can catch the criminal after the crime has been committed. For those who are now dead that is too late and what about all the times when the results are so blurry and grainy you can't identify the perpetrator anyway.
Another argument is why are you against being watched, you must be guilty of something illegal. Well, do you have an objection to being watched in your bedroom, are you guilty of something illegal, or do you just believe in privacy? Most of us believe in privacy and don't want to be subjected to monitoring by surveillance cameras.
As Benjamin Franklin once said:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
No comments:
Post a Comment