Last week I was reading the comments following a Fox News
Online article about the murder rate in London now exceeding the murder rate in
New York City (“London Mayor Sadiq Khan targets knives as murder rate spikes:‘There is never a reason to carry a knife’”) when I saw and responded to this
comment from buzzkill63:
“Obviously the 5 million cameras around London aren’t
helping.”
In responding I merely commented that nothing in the article
could justify such a conclusion, but then other self-styled libertarians
decided to join in and immediately the discussion branched into fears about the
government watching us, curfews, martial law, loss of freedom, ‘1984’ and
accusations about what a weak government slave I am because I don’t take
umbrage with the cameras. On this and
other posts I see a lot of what I believe to be misguided notions with respect
to the concept of liberty and individual rights these days, so I thought the
debate would make for interesting discussion at PT.
I’ll start by asking what’s wrong with this statement?:
“Obviously the 5 million cameras around London aren’t
helping [prevent murder and other crime].”
Putting aside questions about the claim that there are “5
million” cameras in London, my problem with Buzzkill’s comment is that the
article provided no basis whatsoever for concluding that security cameras have
no impact on crime, and certainly such a conclusion isn’t “obvious” from
reading the article. That might have
been a reasonable conclusion if we knew with certainty that every other
relevant variable remained constant in London over the time period in question,
but the article says no such thing and my ten seconds of research disproved
that possibility. An article on the
online site, Quartz, declared:
“London is now home to more than 8.6 million people, the
highest the city’s population has been since 1939. What’s more, 44% of London
now consists of black and ethnic minorities, compared to only 28.9% in 2001.
That’s according to the Greater London Authority, which serves the London
mayor’s office [via the BBC].”
That was written in February, 2015, thus the increase in
black and ethnic minorities represents a 52% increase in just 14 years. What do you suppose would happen to the crime
rate in any major American city if the minority population were to increase
more than 50% in just 14 years? Well
since certain minorities tend to commit crime at a much higher rate than
non-minorities, the crime rate would likely surge with that population, and
without security cameras the crime rate in London might be considerably higher
than it is. We just don’t know. That’s the point, and that’s why no “obvious”
conclusion could be drawn. Buzzkill63
clearly had a pre-existing bias against security cameras and despite the
absence of evidence supporting his claim was attempting to use the article to
spread that bias.
Now please allow me to make a few points:
- Yes it’s true that in this modern age you’re likely to be on camera a good portion of any time that you’re away from your home; however, the vast majority of security cameras are owned by private citizens who are protecting their homes and property and private businesses that want to provide security for their employees, their customers and their property. Wouldn’t you agree that these private individuals and businesses have the right to monitor and protect their own property, and that any attempt to restrict it is an infringement of that right?
- As the guardian/manager of assets that belong to the public (i.e. you and me), the government has the right and the duty, on our behalf, to ensure the security of that property, and one of the best ways of doing so is with surveillance cameras. I am as wary as anyone of Big Brother and creeping totalitarianism, but I believe it’s unwise to attempt to mitigate that concern by depriving ourselves of the critical right to protect our public property.
- Regardless of how widespread the use of security cameras is or will be, the government still has no right to install cameras in our homes or private businesses without a warrant. The growing use of cameras for security elsewhere doesn’t change that reality one iota.
- No one has the right to an expectation of privacy once they leave their home and enter the public domain or go onto private property. Sorry if that reality bothers you but that’s how it is and always has been. People are not going to avert their eyes or sacrifice their own security for the sake of your unreasonable demand for privacy beyond the borders of your own property, and to ask them to do so would yet again be an infringement upon their rights.
- Video footage from security cameras has become an increasingly crucial tool in identifying and convicting scores of criminals who actually do pose a real threat to your rights. I see this all the time in my ongoing, unofficial research on crime and punishment (which consists of me watching every other true crime show that’s produced). A 2009 article in The Telegraph states that:
“The first study of its kind into the effectiveness of
surveillance cameras revealed that almost every Scotland Yard murder inquiry
uses their footage as evidence. In 90 murder
cases over a one year period, CCTV was used in 86 investigations, and senior
officers said it helped to solve 65 cases by capturing the murder itself on
film, or tracking the movements of the suspects before or after an attack.”
My DVR schedule includes a program called “See No Evil,” a
true-crime show that is entirely devoted to murder cases that were solved with
the use of security cameras. Each time I
watch I marvel at how amazing it is that these invaluable tools for crime
prevention are providing the added gift of helping to identify predators in our
society who might otherwise never have been caught and convicted and might have
gone on to hurt others. We will never
know how many lives have been saved or crimes prevented. That’s the irony that allows people like the
“libertarians” at Fox or the ACLU to profess that “video surveillance has notbeen proven effective,” an argument which is eerily reminiscent to the claims
that there’s no evidence that gun ownership deters crime. You can’t document something that doesn’t
happen, right?
The “libertarians” accused me of being willing to trade my
rights for security.
“What right of yours is being infringed by security
cameras?” I asked.
“The right to privacy,” someone responded.
That’s an absurd interpretation of that constitutional
protection. The right to privacy does
not mean you have the right to be invisible to others. This is why I lose patience with
“libertarians.” Making absurd demands
for “rights” that don’t exist and that can’t possibly be enforced does not
further the cause of freedom, and the first clue to that ought to be when you
find yourself on the same side as the Left’s best friend, the ACLU (who,
incidentally, never seems to be offended by videos that show cops doing things
they shouldn’t).
Finally I’d like to point out that just like DNA evidence,
evidence from security cameras can be crucial for exonerating innocent people
who are wrongfully accused because unlike people, the cameras don’t lie. I get that it’s discomfiting to know that
you’re on camera so much of the time, but when I asked one of the
“libertarians” what they were afraid the cameras might see he cheekily replied,
“I might be picking a wedgie.” What
silly people would we be to undermine our real rights to protect ourselves, our
families and our property all to ensure that no stranger with a camera ever
catches you “picking a wedgie?”
I’d love to know your thoughts.
~CW
To leave a comment please click on this link to The Pesky Truth. I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger. Thanks!
