[goldstategop]

Public cameras are hated by criminals. And they help police to identify terrorists. Yet we get the civil liberties hysteriamongers to insist they compromise our privacy and freedom. Huh? Its a claim that makes no sense in a public space. Besides, in a television ubiquitous age, people want to be famous. Privacy is the least of the public's concern. But in public spaces, its a criminal obssession - its easier to commit a crime if no one can observe you. One would wish Jeffrey Rosen and his likes in the ACLU and the privacy lobby got it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

I want public cameras set up along our entire U.S-Mexican border along with a stun-lethal fence. Then watch illegal immigration dry up for a good. Well, I can dream, can't I? The bad guys won't be a problem when we can keep them under video surveilance 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks the entire year.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Jaysun]

Maybe there is some value in public cameras as a deterrent. Other than that, they seem to be fairly useless. They certainly haven't been useful in stopping a crime once it's started. We have some film from 9/11 of the terrorist boarding the planes. Likewise, a film of the terrorist in London was discovered after the attack.

[sergeantdave]

Better than cameras are an armed citizenry with the gumption to hold criminals caught in the act, and beat the hell out of them if necessary, until the cops arrive.

Cameras are nothing more than an excuse for government "to do something" so lazy people need not self-govern their communities.

A self-governing community will pour citizens into the streets by the dozens when the call "Help!" is heard. A camera can't do that.

[CyberAnt]

I don't agree they deter all crime - at least not terrorism. The terrorists DON'T CARE - THEY'LL BE BLOWN UP.