Caught on tape: surveillance cameras and solving murders
An arrest has been made in the Kelsey Smith case, another almost unspeakably tragic murder in which an attractive young woman was abducted in a mall parking area and the incident was recorded by surveillance cameras.
The facts of the case make it clear that those cameras were vital in fingering the alleged perpetrator. Not only was Ms. Smith’s abduction apparently taped, but the suspect’s arrival at the store and his vehicle were likewise identified by the cameras. It is highly possible that, but for those cameras, this case would have forever gone unsolved.
Surveillance cameras have been proliferating for quite some time now. Many strict libertarians aren’t so sure they like them or that they’ll always be used properly, and it’s not totally clear whether they have the deterrent effect proponents claim, although it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense that they would. But there’s little doubt that they have had an impact on solving crimes.
It’s frustrating to know that the beginnings of a crime as heinous as this one can be recorded without anyone being able to see it at the time and, more importantly, to stop it. Passively watching, ex post facto, as an innocent and beloved teenager gets abducted in a Target parking lot by what turns out to be her murderer isn’t what police prefer to do.
But there’s no way that all cameras could be monitored in real time, just as anyone who really thought about the notorious telescreens in Orwell’s 1984 would have to conclude that, unless half the population were engaged in continually monitoring the other half (and then who would watch the watchers?) it just couldn’t be effectively done—except for its deterrent value, which might be enough.
To counter this problem, some surveillance cameras today are becoming “smarter,” detecting atypical movement patterns and calling attention to them by alerting a human operator (of course, for that to work, there must be at least one human operator around).
The machines are smart, but people—including perpetrators—are smart as well. Humans have found ways to thwart the cameras, but designers of the devices find ways to counter the humans, something like the race between bacteria and advances in antibiotics.
It’s cold comfort in a case such as Kelsey Smith’s that the cameras recording the horror that led to her death were mute bystanders only able to document it. But by doing so they may have led to the arrest of her murderer, and the prevention of another such act.
Neo,
Your link to infowars above compels me to point out that Alex Jones and his ilk are the farthest things from libertarians; they are Nazis, White Supremacists, Christian Identifiers, Militia types and Klansmen.
Something to watch out for. While most libertarians are obviously not “Nazis”(in fact , I call myself a “social libertarian”), most nazis and like-minded types these days claim to be “libertarians”, hpoing their propaganda and anti-American rhetoric will have public respectability.
This is why Ron Paul has much explaining to do before I would consider him for any office, let alone President.
The funny part Neo, is that Nazis were once at the bottom of the power ladder. So they could have easily been crushed by surveillaince techniques. And they naturally would have been against them, if they thought of overthrowing or just subverting the status quo. But when they get into power… then they become quite conservative heh.
I’ve always been torn on the camera issue – lots of potential for abuse and for good. I trust some individuals for good, but distrust the govt as a whole (and I think anyone who pays much attention will do so – even if you truly accept everything your “side” does the other will get power someday).
I’m not a fan of ubiquitous or totally absent cameras, personally I’m more a fan of cameras in strategic locations – for instance at intersections and such. I see no reason for nearly everything to be filmed – there is a point MUCH less than that wherein we get 90% or more of the benefit but a MUCH smaller chance for abuse. We only need to know who to narrow things down too in cases like this, not see everything – our forensics are more than capable of doing the rest and I prefer it take something of a real effort to get that level of tracking.
To be somewhat truthful (hey, how truthful can you get in an anonymous internet posting, even though I try and keep the same username in as many places as I can), I do not want video evidence of me picking my nose, scratching my ass, and all sorts of embarrassing things all of us do. However, I *do* want the ability to catch criminals and the two need to be balanced.
In this particular case it was on private property and private cameras – given that every part of that was *private* that is just part of living. Do not go to such places if you do not want filmed – were I running such a place I would probably do the same simply to film potential lawsuits. However that is a far cry from what places like much of England has which is too much for me, but then others like it and that is what a republic/democracy is for anyway.
Hello, I like your blog and thought I would submit a post since, my business and blog is in the video surveillance and pos field so it pertains to yours at least somewhat. I just wrote an article on Video Surveillance called Video Surveillance Preparation. Here is an excerpt:
With crime on the rise many people and business are looking for added security. Video surveillance is one the top ways to improve the security of your belongings and loved ones. I get asked alot about what is good or recommended and although each situation is different there are some common things to consider when showing a video surveillance system that will bring the required results.
You have two basic kinds of video surveillance cameras, there are…
You can read the rest here http://www.hivelocitynetworks.com/blog
Feel free to post and let me know what you think. Thanks