My husband, a daughter and I flew into Heathrow on the day that terrorists bombed some buses and the London subway. Within days, they had video on several of the suicide bombers because there were CCTV cameras all over the place. Having all this in place enabled them to have comfort in opening the various historical places and museums quickly.
When the Boston Marathon was bombed, I think it was that day or at least soon afterward that security cameras from several of the stores on that main road were used to get a picture of one of the bombers that led to his identification and the scary chase through the Boston area.
In both of these cases, I would assume that it would have been much harder to solve who was behind these acts of terrorism, meaning a longer period of fear and very heightened security.
After London, someone I know who has been in both the UK and the US for extended periods of time, mentioned that the US had greater reservations against the presence of CCTV cameras. As to whose privacy, I know that everyone who went down the elevators to the underground (subway) would have been filmed. However, even if there was any cause for embarrassment - ie my kids arguing or it being a bad hair day - was never a concern. I know that even after knowing that there were cameras, my family did not try to avoid them.
Like you, we do not have a camera on our condo. However, I would have no problem if a neighbor had one - and given the closeness, we were included in any captured video.
I do think that on a local, state or even federal level, legislation may be needed that defines how law enforcement must secure any video they opt to retain. Use should be limited to legitimate policing uses that could be carefully defined. Once a person has given the video to the police, it is reasonable that the police retain access to it. I am pretty sure if a person goes to the police and writes a complaint on something, that report stays with the police -- and, even years later, could have bearing on an investigation. Imagine a domestic abuse cases where it could lead police to someone who had previously been threatening. Now, in some of those cases, the earlier incident will be found to be irrelevant and that person will be investigated and will have had to go through questioning that might not otherwise have happened. But in some cases, it could lead to getting to the truth faster.
One thing to consider is that where the video might show only a detail in a long relationship, it is real and the original is not edited.
= new reply since forum marked as read
