Your TIC comment made me wonder something since on the gun threads it has been told me several times to put a sign on my lawn saying
"No Guns Here" if I really don't think guns are suitable home protection devices.

What about a sticker in every window in your home saying something like
"Smile You're Being Videotaped Right Now". I wonder how as deterrence that would stack up against a sign saying "Unguarded Arsenal Inside"?

 

The security firms that offer 'armed response' to businesses and private residences no longer tout their signs as being a deterrent to crime. They merely let the serious burglars know extra work is required to jump the telephone lines without checking. Every hood knows the mini-marts and virtually every other vulnerable retail operation has video surveillance, so now many kill any witnesses and disable the video. Gun shops cover their storefronts with steel, either mesh or plate, which is just a small inconvenience to the ****** & run thieves as they have to steal a vehicle in addition to the getaway car to put through it at 30mph. Anti-theft devices with the 'serious' window decals on vehicles? Three minutes, including the very expensive self-contained power units, because they have the manufacturers wiring schematics as soon as the first installation shop gets them. Vehicle GPS systems? About 30-seconds to disable the power, same rule of thumb as car alarms.

The point is, man’s best efforts can always be equaled, or surpassed, by man. Any security programmer/analyst can tell you how easy it can be to find a backdoor into most ‘secure’ servers,. And if a technical entry can’t be accomplished, there are always disgruntled employees or those susceptible to bribes or blackmail for passwords.

With regard to constant video surveillance of the public, for whatever reason, I feel the same as ctfuzzy. My problem is with the people in charge. They’re no different than someone devoted to a feel-good belief system in that they have no moral ethics about damming others if it suits their purpose. And, be it religion or politics, power and control are right out there in front when it comes to motivation. With a majority of politicians and many religious groups, add money and you strip every shred of morality from their very being.

We have serious social problems that aren't going to be contained by visual or other passive deterrents, but I don’t want elected scumbags making the decisions on how video surveillance will be used. Not that it matters, most Americans have become so dependent on one form of government or another taking care of them that they welcome any opportunity to not think or protect themselves. Thank you but I prefer to keep my handguns.

 

Mikeman,

I am only one person and I have no facts or figures to quote. But I can if pressed prove that I see a very large variety of electronic security and monitoring devises in use on a very regular basis from a professional prospective.

What I could not do if I really had to, was count the number of times I have seen a camera "acknowledged" by a POTENTIAL bad guy, and them very curtly leaving the area.

I will admit to the assumption involved on my part that this was commonplace, and having given it enough weight to have convinced me of my position; that video was an effective deterant.

But, you make an excellent point!

!! It is extra cool when it helps nail the bad guy. . er, , person too !!

(sorry ladies)

 

To worry about cameras is to put oneself into a loop of impossible proportions. There are cameras EVERYWHERE, not just on street corners, but on roof tops, tall walls, bridges and trees.. There are cameras in stores, in malls and in public parks. There are even high definition pictures captured from SPACE.. Cameras are here to stay, so live with it. It is an infringement of your public liberty, but it also sees things you want to get rid of, like drug deals, and muggings. Eventually EVERYTHING will be photographed, and cataloged and filed.. We all are in more databases than we ever thought possible. But you are, I am too.. I have been contacted by my INSURANCE company, and told to be more accurate with my mileage, as they had pictures of my truck in most major cities, in the last year.. I have always been honest about the mileage I drive, and they thought I drove more, because they had PICTURES of my truck.. They sure didn't follow me around snapping me when I stopped, they had access to the databases that photograph everything.

You want to be scared of this, huh.. Don't bother, you can't win, you won't get rid of the cameras, so modify your life, and don't pee in public.

Theo

 

ctfuzzy,
I have no facts and figures either. Just from my knothole, I am surprised by the number of bank robberies (my state ranked #4 recently) and convenience store robberies despite all the cameras. Most banks have more cameras than you can count, even if you take off your shoes and undo your zipper. I would have thought that bank robberies would be headed toward zero with all the monitoring. The problem is that there are too many people that won't let a few inconveniences get in the way of pulling a bank job or other crime. Video may be a deterrant to some, but as georgedavila implied, they just build better criminals these days.

Regarding nailing the bad guy, I suppose every dark cloud has a silver lining. But I think too many dark clouds are being pushed on us because of potential silver linings.

 

From a professional prospective it is common knowledge the recording media in the public sector is reused so many times (to get the most mileage out of the media dollar) that the images are most frequently insufficient quality to stand forensic scrutiny. I think it a safe assumption the "bad guys" know this as well. Perhaps that is a somewhat significant factor(?).

I'm not remembering right this second your geographical region, but I can say that most major (National?) banks are switching slowly but surely to mass digital storage systems dedicated to alleviating this problem.

And Theo, it ain't the watching that bugs me. It's what's ultimately done with the stuff that's been watched by the watchers.

FWIW.

 

Theo,
The thing that I want to know is how did the insurance company know which cities you were in so that they could get the pictures? Did they access a credit card database or something else?

 

And from time to time I give the ol' no.1 salute to the sky. Freinds ask me why and I tell them You never know who's watching you.

 

England is a great place to compare to. Do any of you know that crime is insanely high over there. Waxy, this is probaly the one time in my life that i will agree with you.

Evidently, those Englanders don't like the cameras much either, many have pellet gun holes or paint on them.

 

Ummmm OK.

Sorry, I don't remember locking horns with you in the past.

Check out the Trophy Hunting thread, it might make two.

Waxy

 

So you judge the opinions of the British based on the acts of their delinquents?

 

I'm not in that field of interest, but it doesn't take much thought to realize mass digital image storage (and subsequent retrieval) will eventually be accomplished on regional, national and international levels due to larger operational scale reducing operating costs. There will be local relay stations to central storage just like cities now have server relays. All the technology is available and venture capital would certainty be available, I’d think P&P and marketing are the time consumers before implementation.

Sit down at a workstation in the local detective bureau, pull up the ID of the local mini-mart which was recently robbed with the clerk and two customers murdered as potential witnesses and view high resolution digital images of the time of the crime. Pop the bandit image(s) into vast databases, including driver’s license images for suspects. All insurance carriers would make the hidden cameras a requirement in any robbery-prone business.

Sounds like a superior investment opportunity could exist in the rubber facemask industry. Maybe free-standing retail outlets located in most medium-major sized intercities.

 

Waxy, if i remember correctly, you seemed very left leaning in your posts. I am the opposite.

 

I think Waxy was trying to determine if you judge all Brits by their percentage of population who vandalize public property. If so, in my opinion, the tagging one can see on virtually every surface of some areas in the US would make a similar statement?

Waxy left-leaning? Give up the guns Waxy.

 

George,

The tagging idea came to my mind also.