Comments on: Frightening Pictures from London

By: Derek

Derek — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:21:03 +0000

Shadi, I don’t think this article was meant to “provide answers.”

Any answers he has to your closed questions will, of course, be his opinion. And, I believe his goal, was to stray from that.

Anyone can preach. I like that Rick used a simple question for us to consider and think for ourselves. You should give it a try instead of looking for some conflict resolution.

By: Shadi Almosri

Shadi Almosri — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:58:01 +0000

Rick,

Rather than providing a question in place of a question, i’d prefer an answer then we can deal with “other” questions in a separate conversation.

You as a leader of a political party should be providing answers, guidance and innovations, not merely throwing hypothetical questions.

So do the cameras in the London Underground provide more harm than good?

Did the London Underground surveillance policy help in the prevention or the solving of crime?

Do cameras in general help crime prevention?

Do cameras in general help the solving of crime?

Who is being hurt by CCTV cameras? (and why?)

What alternatives do you propose for the current thinking behind the implementation of CCTV cameras?

It’s very easy to say “something doesn’t work” but not so easy to provide a viable alternative.

I’ll be looking forward to your response.

By: Rick Falkvinge

Rick Falkvinge — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:51:32 +0000

Shadi: Thanks for your feedback. The Swedish source was actually used as source for a Swedish blog post; I have kind volunteers who translate my blog posts into English.

The original source (for the Swedish source) was Bruce Schneier.

Also, regardless of whether the cameras make crime prevention more effective, one needs to ask the question if the society we are supposed to protect is lost in the process.

By: Shadi Almosri

Shadi Almosri — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:20:27 +0000

Let me also point out that i don’t think you have covered the “crime prevention” angle, it is a very valid point that there are alot of cameras, but cameras are often not for crime solving but crime prevention, who is going to try and commit a crime infront of a camera, and an interesting statistic would be looking at data of crime rates in areas that have implemented CCTV and then neigbouring areas that have not and to see the effect over a similar period.

You might want to look at such information provided on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8219022.stm and the discussion here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/24/2031258/One-Crime-Solved-Per-1000-London-CCTV-Cameras

By: Shadi Almosri

Shadi Almosri — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:13:39 +0000

I think you’re kind of using a very biased set of images here to make your argument (which might not be a terrible one) somewhat stronger.

the london underground has been subject to a major terrorist attack and will continue to be a target should someone (regardless of what kind of agenda) have an issue be it political, social, religious or personal. It is a confined space with large number of people and can create somewhat catastrophic damage.

thus showing images of london underground covering as many spots as possible is simply a point of logic for crime prevention and solving, the camera’s were instrumental in catching the 7/7 attackers on the London Underground.

Using a Swedish article as a source for an English blog post is poor writing. These two simple facts for me discredit anything that you might be attempting to write in this article. You don’t need to cotton wool a legitimate story with poor research…