It’s the one about closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, but apparently the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department hasn’t. If he had, he wouldn’t be pushing this bull shit.
From the Department of Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste comes word that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly thinks that now is a great time to install even more surveillance cameras hither and yon around the Big Apple. After the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaev brothers were famously captured on security camera footage and thereby identified. That just may soften up Americans to the idea of the all-seeing glass eye. “I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table,” Kelly gloats.
The problem for Kelly is that the cameras didn’t do what we’ve all been told that they were intended to do. After 9/11 and based on what was going on in London at the time greater surveillance in public areas was sold to the public as a means to prevent further attacks. Almost every square inch of London is covered by cameras and has been for years. The only role that they played after the 2007 London Underground bombings was to identify the bombers.
As the articles points out, it was video footage taken by cameras owned by private companies, not the government, that helped to identify the bombers. I don’t have a problem if private businesses record who comes on to their property, but I do have a problem with constant surveillance of people’s movements in public by the government. I have a bigger problem with the government spending my tax dollars to fund the equipment, especially if the government is lying about what they can do to prevent crimes or acts of terror.
Of course in some cities, those private institutions have been strong armed by the government into allowing “sharing” of their private property. I have a much bigger problem with this, and I think that at some point in time, this issue will go before the federal courts.
There are certainly things that the government can do that might prevent terror attacks in major (or minor) cities. One that comes to mind is actually vetting the people who come into the country in the first place. But no, we can’t do that, it would be discriminatory or something. It’s far better to not only let potential enemies into the country, but to support them and shower them with the largesse of taxpaying public. Maybe in gratitude, they’ll only use sensitive, smaller, bombs that won’t kill as many infidels.