Slashdot Mirror


10,000 Cameras Ineffective At Deterring Crime

Mike writes "London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million but an analysis of the publicly funded spy network has cast serious doubt on its ability to help solve crime. In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average. The study found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any. Could this be an effective argument against the proliferation of cameras or will politicians simply ignore the facts and press ahead?"

6 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The answer is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    10,000 not effective eh? lets add 3 zero's onto that! 10,000,000 CAMERAS! haha, try and hide from me now, citizen!

  2. I'd like to know if crime rates.. by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like to know if crime rates have gone up due to the cameras being stolen!

  3. Re:Could this be an effective argument... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 3, Funny
    Was that a rhetoric question?

    What do you think?

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  4. Re:Could this be an effective argument... by Duhavid · · Score: 4, Funny

    "What do you think?"

    Is that a rhetorical question?

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  5. Re:Cameras don't deter criminals. by oliverthered · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I guess you can't be a member of the KKK in Florida, or hold clown conventions.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  6. Re:Camera proponents spin it both ways by Zeio · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm for Ron Paul and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Read the sig.

    ass-hole.

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.