You are being watched. Gonna be, anyway

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“The Dallas Police Department is in the initial phase of installing 34 cameras at ‘major flash points’ for activity in the central business district, paid for by a one-year, $840,000 grant from the Meadows Foundation, and has the approval of the city council’s public safety committee. The police can't wait to expand the program and create a surveillance net across the city. Even though the evidence is there that police cameras are an expensive boondoggle that don't reduce crime.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

People want more police on patrol. Cameras are a more cost-effective way to do it than hiring and training humans. Kudos to police departments that try to use technology to contain costs.

Criminals tend to commit their offenses where people aren't looking. Cameras, being immobile, have a disadvantage over patrolling police. Humans can look down alleys and around corners where cameras can't. So, it's no surprise that a London study found evidence that cameras were most effective in parking lots, where criminals have no choice -- if they want to break into a car, they have to do it where the cars are, out in the open where the cameras can see them.

So, use of cameras is a wise step, but they should be installed in areas where they are most likely to have an effect. I hope that's the plan in the city of Dallas.

Oh, and that cost: $840,000 for 34 cameras for one year. Wow. I hope the per camera cost comes down drastically for cameras beyond the original 34. And in years two, three, and later.