Why fear surveillance cameras on streets and other public places? These cameras have been used at selected locations in large cities for some time. (In the tiny principality of Monaco they cover almost every square foot of space.) Now, on a TV newscast today, I see that they are being installed in the small town of Bellows Falls, Vermont. There, as in other places, some people are complaining that they invade their privacy.

I can’t understand the thinking of such people. How can a camera, which will see what any person standing at the location (a cop or anyone else) will see, invade any law-abiding person’s privacy? By what reasoning do these complainers think they have the right to go to a public place and not be seen, as though they were invisible? Don’t they realize that when they check out at a supermarket cash register or withdraw cash from an ATM they are being seen by a surveillance camera?

Why do the complainers refuse to acknowledge the benefit of these surveillance cameras:
–deter some criminals from committing their crimes where they know they are being watched;
–record crimes by those who do commit them, to aid the police in tracking them down and provide evidence at a court trial;
–enhance police patrols by covering areas where there is no police presence at the moment, but which can be reached quickly by patrol cars;
–spot emergency situations–auto accidents, fires, people injured, etc.–and respond quickly?

Because of these benefits, ordinary citizens can more greatly enjoy their surroundings from a reduced fear of becoming a crime victim, while, at the same time, being better protected by a quicker response time in the event of an accident, sudden illness or injury, fire, etc.

In Baltimore, some people complain that the cameras just drive the drug dealers and other miscreants to other parts of the city that don’t yet have the cameras. Great! They are doing their job. So, just keep adding them to cover more and more areas.