Newark and the Future of Crime Fighting

theodp writes "Newark Mayor Cory Booker is betting that cutting-edge technology will reduce crime and spark an economic renaissance. From a newly opened Surveillance Operations Center, cops armed with joystick controllers monitor live video feeds from more than 100 donated cameras scattered across the crime-ridden city. The moves are drawing kudos from businesses like Amazon subsidiary Audible.com, which has moved its HQ to downtown Newark, where space is 50% cheaper than in Manhattan. But are citizens giving up too much privacy?"

Comments

Crowdsource it!

[bennybertow]

Just think about it. If everybody had access to these camera streams, everyone could watch everyone doing... er... crime. Then call the cops if needed. Would work like Wikipedia, as everybody could possibly vote on where the cops should be sent next, or which direction the camera should turn. Then make money with advertising.

Except, of course, cameras don't work.

[Noryungi]

Nope, they don't reduce crime. They don't even prevent them. They don't deter and they are pretty much useless.

CCTV cameras are everywhere in the UK, but, according to a recent report by the CCTV manager of Scotland Yard... They simply don't work, despite billions of UKP invested. You can read this analysis here.

Putting real, flesh-and-blood policemen, on the beat is the way to go. Putting cameras (which hardly qualifies as high-tech anyway) don't work.

Re:Any numbers to compare?

[Halo1]

The UK has the most camera's per capita, I think. Are there any numbers available on how much crime has decreased in those areas where the camera's are? Also how much have they incread in surrounding areas where they are not.

Crime doesn't move away when cctv's are installed. They simply have pretty much no consistent effects on crime rates at all. And they generally don't help with solving crimes either.