May 1, 2007
Police Deploy CCTV Cameras Early
If you remember the "handing over" of Iraq to Iraqi authorities by the US-led coalition a few seasons ago, you may recall that, in order to prevent terrorist attacks, the ceremony was performed a day early. Yup, W, you sure pulled a fast one on them.
Well, we couldn't help but draw the mental parallel between that auspicious day and the rolling-out of new police cameras three days ahead of schedule, perhaps to zigzag the efforts of the official opposition, the Toronto Public Space Committee. In the Committee's open letter to the Mayor, they write:
First and foremost, there is ample evidence from other jurisdictions that CCTV cameras do not succeed in deterring crime. A sampling of the ever-growing library of reports and studies concerning CCTV camera usage will quickly reveal that cameras have no effect on the amount of crime in the targeted jurisdiction.They go on to talk about privacy issues, the expense, and the possible negative effects on democratic expression.
The new camera project is funded by the province, sort of. The devices themselves, at $130,000 a pop, are being paid for by our good friends at Queen's Park. The burden of maintaining them, however, is on the City. This itself is controversial because council actually had little input in the matter: this project, with no real public (or neighbourhood) consultation, is being coordinated by an un-elected body: the Toronto Police Services Board.
The cameras will be in place for 6 months in the Entertainment District, Scarborough and North York while the pilot is in effect, but given the city's past experience with "pilot projects" like the Megabin, it would not surprise us if they continued to stay up after the pilot's expiry. Maybe now they will be able to stop guerrilla poets from holding spontaneous slams using the camera in front of Chapters (shown right).
To learn more about voicing your opinion, see the TPSC's website and Facebook group.
|
...given the city's past experience with "pilot projects" like the Megabin, it would not surprise us if they continued to stay up after the pilot's expiry.
Guess what CityNews is reporting today.
Ever been to London? There are CCTV cameras everywhere. That's how they caught the train bombers so quickly.
Kevin wrote: "First and foremost, there is ample evidence from other jurisdictions that CCTV cameras do not succeed in deterring crime. A sampling of the ever-growing library of reports and studies concerning CCTV camera usage will quickly reveal that cameras have no effect on the amount of crime in the targeted jurisdiction."
You are missing the point Kevin. Cameras are not placed to deter crime, they are placed so that evidence can be collected when crimes are committed.
Thousands of criminals are caught each year because of evidence from security cameras.
In terms of stopping this, an argument against the invasion of privacy would much stronger. However, businesses want it and much of the public does as well. Good luck!
Right...so do we want to spend our money to deter crime, which will save us funds in the long term, or spend more of it to catch criminals after the fact, leaving and already broke city further in debt?
We have limited resources and I don't see the endgame in spending more on police, the courts, and jails. Oh wait, why don't we privatize all of them so taxpayers won't have to foot the bill (directly).
"We have limited resources and I don't see the endgame in spending more on police, the courts, and jails. Oh wait, why don't we privatize all of them so taxpayers won't have to foot the bill (directly). "
Another smug post from an arrogant TPSC member or sympathizer. In response to your sarcastic question, why doesn't the city fund every program with tax payer money, even if it's being offered for free in a public-private partnership?
You tax and spend Marxists who are offended by ads amuse me. Why don't we jack taxes on businesses by 100% so the City can pay for all the public space and crime prevention projects you want. After all, who cares about business competitiveness.
Furthermore, money spent on police actually deters crime, regardless of what you may think.
I'd say I'm a bit of a tax and spend lefty myself... I don't like ads... I see plenty of cities functioning fine with very little use of them.
However, the issue here is CCTV and I have no objections to it. Deterring crime is fine and all, but we don't live in Simcity utopia where you're going to be able to eliminate it. And CCTV increases the chance of catching a perpetrator.
BTW, London has CCTVs installed just about everywhere, and last time I checked the city has not collapsed as a result.
If businesses want video cameras watching their properties, they are free to install them without the city footing the bill.
"If businesses want video cameras watching their properties, they are free to install them without the city footing the bill."
If businesses want to be protected from armed robbers, they're free to hire security guards.
If people don't want their businesses to burn down, they're free to keep a hose in basement.
It's not unreasonable for businesses to expect something in return for their tax dollars.
Plus the cameras are on public property, not inside individual stores where their utility would be far more limited.
I don't want to drag this out but...I'm not in favour of taxing and spending. However, I would rather the government spend our money on things that will guarantee results (prevention), rather than on procedures (police and courts). This will save taxpayers money in the long run.
Of course I don't think the government should fund everything, does anybody?
If any of you (James) did any research you would find the countries that have focused on prevention (mostly Europe and Japan) have a far lower crime rates than those that don't (the U.S and 'third world'), and they spend far less money.
Yes, if a business wants to hire a security guard, go right ahead. There are however, much cheaper and more effective ways of creating a safe society.
And please, don't jump to conclusions :)
Toronto's crime rate is down and one of the lowest in N America. So why are the police trying to do this??? Control and putting up a fake image that they are "fighting" crime. Problem is that these spycams don't deter crime and cost too much money and they rob us of our privacy. BAD IDEA!!! Lets bring down these cams for good. Not to mention racism. I won't go there.