Slashdot Mirror


Houston Expands Downtown Surveillance, Unsure If It Helps

SpaceGhost writes "The Associated Press reports that the Houston (Texas) Police will be adding 180 surveillance cameras in the downtown area, bringing the total to close to 1000. While most cover public areas (stadiums, theater district) the police suggest that Houston also has more 'critical infrastructure' (energy companies) than other cities. Interestingly AP points out that 'Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.' Didn't London face the same issue?"

4 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Houston, We Have a Problem... by mevets · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point is to sell surveillance equipment; have you been asleep for a decade?
    The invested parties - police, politicians, journalists, arms dealers and church leaders all have a problem: Crime is on a long decreasing trend, and nobody knows why!
    The police, to justify monstrous budgets, love surveillance gear. On the odd occasion it is useful for something other than catching shady cops, it makes for great TV. Great TV makes for proud citizens; and easy budget cycles. Journalists love great footage, so they can collect paycheques without working for it.
    Politicians love police (from a certain distance) since they lend a sheen of goodness to their creepy incompetence.

    This makes for easy pickings for the surveillance industry to sell boatloads of worthless crap to incompetents who have been trusted with your money. The last thing they need is some bearded hippy pointing out that it is all a scam.

  2. DHS reasoning by minstrelmike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason they say the cameras aren't for crime reduction is because that is measurable. If we say it is to protect critical infrastructure and no terrorist attacks occur in Houston, well obviously the system worked and it was money well spent.

    Same as the justification for TSA. The bin Laden operation was a one shot deal. After it happened, no one would be able to hijack a fully-loaded (public) airplane and use it as a flying bomb. In fact, only 3 of the 4 planes hijacked on 9/11 were successful. Once we knew this wasn't your regular hijacking to Cuba, passengers responded.

    But since we set up all these security lines and prevent people from bringing on shampoo and dangerous trinkets, then TSA is obviously the reason for our success.
    Frankly, if we had door locks on airplane cabins, I suspect no one could take over an airplane even with box cutters now.

  3. Re:Who watches them by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea is that that criminals will see the cameras and decide not to commit the crime because there is too much risk of being caught.

    What happens in the UK is that hooded tops, baseball caps and scarves became a very popular fashion choice, so that the cameras can't see who you are.

  4. A common misconception by Sigvatr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cameras are not placed there to prevent crime, but to assist in criminal investigation.