O título do editorial de segunda-feira, 24 de agosto de 2008, é “CCTV cameras: If they do not stop crime or catch criminals, what are they for?” Reproduzo o trecho mais interessante do editorial:
Yet there is plenty of evidence that people are not safer because of the presence of CCTV: studies have argued convincingly that money is better invested in improved street lighting and more uniformed police patrols. If the efficacy of cameras as a crime prevention tool is at least questionable, they must, surely, be useful in helping to apprehend crooks? It turns out that they do not fulfil even that basic function. Det Chief Inspector Mike Neville of Scotland Yard says that in London just one crime is solved a year by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. CCTV played a role in capturing just eight out of 269 suspected robbers across London in one month, many of whom might have thought twice about committing a crime had there been a policeman about. In recent years, the Government has spent £500 million on surveillance cameras. If they do not stop crime or catch criminals, what are they for? To make sure we buy the correct light bulbs, perhaps?
Para quem não sabe fazer contas, a taxa de utilidade das câmeras de vigilância na solução de crimes é de 0,001%! Violenta-se a privacidade alheia para algo totalmente inútil.
Comentários