Wednesday, October 10, 2007

video survailance

Concerning Russels post about the pros and cons of video survailance i saw an interesting article about the evaluation of the berlin subway surveilance. According to that the system did not help to prevent crime, instead people seemed to have considered it when they e.g. created new graffity.

Aparently those results of the evaluation were not very welcome and there were effords to suppress them. This gives me the feeling that there is yet an other agenda to the growing and more and more pervasive survailance. I just wonder what it might be.

In unrelated news seems to regard this text as written in swedish despite my selection in the preferences.


At 3:25 PM, Blogger Marius said...

Have you perchance read The Concrete Jungle by Charles Stross?

At 9:10 PM, Blogger stockholm said...

no, but i read "the traveller" and "the dark river" by John Tvelve Hawks. I will check out your book, too.

At 2:51 AM, Blogger dburrows said...

While one could attribute nefarious motives behind the coverup, I don't know that it's necessary to hypothesize anything worse than a desire to cover up the embarassment. Unfortunately, it's pretty much standard procedure for people to block information that makes them look bad anywhere they think they can get away with it, whether in the government, in business, or in academia.

At 12:26 AM, Blogger etbe said...

I couldn't read the original article, but your summary suggests that security cameras merely moved graffiti from one place to another. If the graffiti is moved from a place that's expensive to repair to a place that's cheap then it's still worth doing.

As for protecting people, total coverage is not needed if you cover the areas where people spend time waiting and if there is an option to move to a covered area (some stations have signs indicating where you can stand to be on camera).


Post a Comment

<< Home