According to an amNY exclusive, surveillance cameras of one form or another have been very effective at capturing crimes in progress, boasting a 45% success rate for offenses committed in the first four months of 2011. However, the devil is in the details: “It’s unclear, though, how often the video leads to an arrest.”
But hey at least it’s great content for news outlets! Despite their inability to prevent crime, which is how these things are sold in, the City is still moving ahead with plans to use federal grants to install a “$201 million network of 3,000 public- and private-sector cameras in Lower Manhattan and midtown by 2013.” Well, that should certainly make everyone a lot safer than cumbersome old firehouses.
![Richard Prince Loves Boobs and Hates Instagram: Live! [NSFW]](http://content.animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/prince_gram-300x168.jpg)
Thought you were all for videotaping public spaces? Why the change of heart?
ahaha exactly this magazine plays the hand when convenient for them! Contradictions for days like WHOA!
Actually no. Apples and oranges. Completely different standards/roles. That's why citizens are allowed to videotape and record (with audio) police officers/soldiers/public officials etc… whereas surveillance cameras have no audio. See? Not the same. Different. But most importantly, too many cameras are a waste of resources, provide a false sense of security, and don't prevent criminal acts. If they were effective, crime would be nonexistent in the UK.