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?"

Re:The answer is...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I'd like to know if crime rates..

[BlueshiftVFX]

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

Re:Could this be an effective argument...

[Esion Modnar]

Was that a rhetoric question?

What do you think?

Re:Could this be an effective argument...

[Duhavid]

"What do you think?"

Is that a rhetorical question?

Re:Cameras don't deter criminals.

[oliverthered]

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

Re:Camera proponents spin it both ways

[Zeio]

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

ass-hole.