> People don’t trust the cameras will be used effectively to reduce crime meaningfully, and so there’s no actual benefit to offset the costs.
The UK has had mass surveillance cameras for a few decades at this point. However, I'm having trouble finding good studies on its effectiveness. The closest I can find is for one town, of all the crimes that were solved, a third of them involved using the cameras to help in solving them. However, it's not clear how crucial the camera was (i.e. was it a key piece of evidence or merely another piece of evidence on top of what they already had).
> Rarely do I see this point being discussed, but to me it’s the most important issue to consider.
I don't disagree. My point is more that, given that regular folks have the power to set up mass surveillance (if they can afford the camera) already, it is the future we're headed towards. The only question is whether we want it in the hands of a few, or in the hands of all. There are problems with either approach.
The UK has had mass surveillance cameras for a few decades at this point. However, I'm having trouble finding good studies on its effectiveness. The closest I can find is for one town, of all the crimes that were solved, a third of them involved using the cameras to help in solving them. However, it's not clear how crucial the camera was (i.e. was it a key piece of evidence or merely another piece of evidence on top of what they already had).
> Rarely do I see this point being discussed, but to me it’s the most important issue to consider.
I don't disagree. My point is more that, given that regular folks have the power to set up mass surveillance (if they can afford the camera) already, it is the future we're headed towards. The only question is whether we want it in the hands of a few, or in the hands of all. There are problems with either approach.