The link I quoted from was carefully selected of course. The ONLY crime whose likelihood is reduced by security cameras is said to be shoplifting. Regarding spying and surveillance, the more you spy, the greater the amount of resources you need to analyse the recorded data. In the absence of that you are recording trash that is good only for framing people who may have done nothing. The Indian nuclear tests in 1998 were done under 24 hour surveillance by US satellites. But they didn't nail anyone. But such inconvenient facts don't prevent anyone from surveilling more and more and more. As a result I believe that it is important to behave like one is being watched, reserving really private stuff to periods which you can document as being really private, or private enough for you to be comfortable. But that is all the freedom one has really. All "freedom" must be found within these constraints. A senior of mine, a Professor of Internal Medicine wrote a book called "Trick or Treat" which has nothing to do with surveillance, but he describes some of the less desirable side effects of overinvestigation in medicine - using all the high tech tools available. Often, such an overinvestigated person is discovered to have a previously undiscovered and completely unrelated symptomless condition that may not even require treatment. But its accidental discovery leads to anxiety, further investigation and, sometimes, even needless treatment. Surveillance for disease has become commonplace in many countries in the world. Surveillance for diabetes, heart disease, bone disease, dental disease, breast cancer, cancer of the cervix, colon cancer, and cancer of the stomach are "routine" in some part of the world or the other. While these tests are often a matter of choice, and one can refuse, I know of instances in which a person who fails to submit to surveillance but later develops a disease that could have been detected earlier is "punished" because his insurance will not cover him for not having cooperated earlier. Medical records of course serve as a permanent record that can pin you down and make you a crime suspect depending on how national laws choose to use the information. A national genetic database that is open for police to look at can always be compared with genetic samples from cells found on cigarette butts, or other sources at the scene of a crime. If you happened to be there - you join the list of suspects. shiv On Friday 21 Sep 2007 1:57 pm, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:

On 12/09/2007, shiv sastry <cybersurg@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tuesday 11 Sep 2007 11:03 pm, ashok _ wrote:

...

do you have any statistics to this effect... that cameras have reduced or prevented crime ?

Yes

http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bb.htm "The statistics show that video surveillance can improve security. With 90 % of banks now fitted with cameras, 50 % of robbers are identified and arrested within two years. Thanks to video surveillance in the Paris metro, 83 % of incidents are now detected, and arrests have risen by 36 %. The use of this technology in department stores has reduced shoplifting by two thirds. "

On the other hand, see this article (from slashdot):

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousan ds+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do

(or http://tinyurl.com/2n6zrz)

"A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any".

Binand

----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE