<blockquote>mandatory implanting of information chips that broadcast an RF frequency that can be read to track where you are and who you are.</blockquote>
Coming soon to a drivers license and passport near you.....
Don't know if any of you have been to London but that whole city is under survalence 24/7 every where you go it is a bit intimadating but eh you get used to it . Now granted we don't have the threat that they do but yes it is needed. Just like a helicopter which should come first for the police. Any thing to help cut crime and if you do no wrong what have you to fear.
After all the criminal uses whatever he or she can to commit the crime
The city's administration is putting together a report on the potential use of public surveillance cameras, which are already in use in Canadian communities ranging from Toronto to the small town of Virden, Man.
While Winnipeggers have expressed resistance to such surveillance in the past, the public seems to have warmed to the idea, Coun. Gord Steeves, who chairs the city's protection and community services committee, told CBC News Monday.
"It may have been one of those things where a critical mass has been reached in this city," he said. "There's more cameras around. People are getting more used to the idea. Society at large might be a little more tolerant to the idea, so maybe its time has come."
One challenge to the plan could be deciding where cameras should be located, Steeves said.
"Winnipeg is a difficult city because it's quite spread out to kind of put your finger on specific spots where cameras would be most useful," he said. "I'd have to be shown that there are specific spots in this city where cameras would genuinely help [stop] repetitive crime."
The William Whyte Residents Association thinks its neighbourhood would be a good place to start. The area has become notorious for criminal activity in recent years, including especially a four-block stretch of Magnus Avenue, which has seen nine homicides and 12 shooting injuries over the last seven years.
Association president Denise Greyeyes believes cameras might help deter criminal activity.
"It would be nice on corners on some of the problem areas," she said Monday. "It would probably make people think about what they are doing, maybe identify some of the traffic going on there, what the problem is."
The continuous nature of camera monitoring might help where other initiatives have failed, she said.
"With other programs, it's just when people are out there and noticing. A lot of times, these crimes are happening during hours when people are usually home sleeping."
Winnipeg police have stepped up the force's presence in the neighbourhood in response to the shooting death of Joanne Hoeppner, a 28-year-old pregnant woman, on Magnus Avenue last week.
The city's administration expects to have its report on using security cameras ready for politicians to examine by February at the earliest.
I had to giggle at this part: "Winnipeg is a difficult city because it's quite spread out to kind of put your finger on specific spots where cameras would be most useful"
It occurred to me that there may be some that think a camera will only move crime somewhere else. Which is true. But if 100 cameras meant 100 fewer crime spots to worry about then I'm all for it. It would mean police could be more focused on the major crime issues.
I don't think people should be concerned with crime shifting from areas where it has been cleared out. Doing nothing doesn't stop it from spreading. I'd rather see criminals on the run, than having the luxury of expanding their empire. But that doesn't mean I think it should be herded to another part of the city and left to fester, either.
I would place tons of hidden surveilence cameras all over downtown Winnipeg, prehaps on every streetcorner. This would make downtown much safer, and deter crime.
Hidden cameras would catch people in the act fer sure. They eventually could act as a deterrent. But visible cameras? Would they not act as a visual reminder to behave? It's like red light speeding cameras. You know they are there and you slow down/don't go through red lights. The mobile cameras catch you but don't really deter you. N'est pas?
I'm generally against them -- I think the trade off is too big. But an advantage would be that in areas where trouble did occur, the behavior of any attending police officers would also be captured.
A good place to start with a surveillance camera experiment is on Graham Avenue. A relatively steady pedestrian flow, constant transit activity and a smash-and-grab crime problem sound like good reasons to install some cameras and see what happens.
England has some of the worst crime rates in the Western world. Its crime rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1981. And while their crime rate has declined since its peak in 1995 (from my understanding, they started their CCTV stuff in 1996), this pretty much follows the trend of all other Western, non CCTV, countries. Canada, for example, has had a steady decrease in crime since 1992.
The fact so many of you seem to be in favour of surveillance cameras is a lot scarier, than living in a city without them. Gotta love the culture of fear...
Liberman- DeanK- I am not clear on your criticism about having a democracy in place protecting one's rights? What I believe is that living in a democracy is the best defense against tyranny, and if one does experience tyranny in a democracy one has many avenues to combat that behaviour.
many years ago, I felt abused by an employee from Revenue Canada. It was so bad, that I was charged and had a trial. Seven of the 9 charges, i was found not guilty, or 8 of the nine, and it was so close to having all of them beaten by my court appointed lawyer. I was fined and paid my fine. Then for $2, I filed a statement of claim, by myself, in Federal Court, charging malicious prosecution regarding this Revenue Canada employee. In a democracy there are avenues to complain that are simply not there in a Communist or dictatorship!