Costly Surveillance Cameras Provide Little Benefit, Columnist Argues
The would-be car-bombing in New York City’s Times Square last weekend put surveillance cameras in the spotlight.
And in that case—in which cameras provided shots of the suspect’s vehicle and an individual apparently unrelated to the bomb attempt taking off his shirt—as in many others, it isn’t clear what worthwhile benefit they provide, writes columnist Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune.
Cameras are costly, both in dollars and in lost privacy, he says. In London, for instance, which reportedly has what may be the highest concentration of private security cameras in the world, it has been estimated that every 1,000 cameras solve one case annually, at a cost of some $30,000.
Similarly, the deterrent value of surveillance cameras is also dubious, he contends. While they may discourage crime within view, that may simply shift the undesirable activity to another location.
Crime-fighting dollars are finite, and should be spent judiciously, Chapman says. “Having a pit bull in your house may keep away burglars. That doesn’t mean you should get one for each room.”
