Surveillance

Crime is well under control, but there is always room to improve.
So, proposed to me, was a plan to install surveillance cameras, to follow the girls in summer skirts around monitor public places, to increase safety.

May I present you the following studies:

http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/02/public_cctv_surveillance_schem.html

If someone publishes a contrary study, you might find it here: http://www.google.de/search?q=Surveillance+camera+efficiency+study

Surveillance opens a few cans of worms. First, the efficiency is debatable. Some experts have estimated the efficiency of a public surveillance camera in crime deterrence is equivalent to that of a street lamp, but the latter comes at a fraction of the cost (esp. if you potty mouthed youngsters wouldn't always use them to eschange grafitti messages what mom does).

Second, the effect seems temporary, but the upkeep cost is permanent. Do you want to pay more taxes for this? (No, don't ask me to cut back something else).

Third, they create new circumstance in privacy invasion. Do you trust the people who spend their days watching the tapes? New laws have to be made. When may the evidence be used in court?

It is also a well known fact that we trust unfocused dizzy moving pictures more than a serious and solid talsk of a witness. The consensus here seems to be that a camera is impartial, there is no distortion by messenger in it - but we forget that we distort it when we see it.

So, installation of new surveillance cameras is outlawed in all public places and places where the public has access to.

We might expect a rise in crime from that decision. Prepare yourself - locks, mobiles, dogs, this might also help our stumbling economy. But don't hold your breath our police force will answer with it's well-known speed and efficiency.