Security cameras work....just not very often or very well

The BBC reports that it takes 1,000 cameras to solve just a single crime. Is it worth it? England apparently thinks so, because they have spent the last few years literally saturating their cities with cameras, at the cost of more than 500 million pounds.

An MP from the shadow government (translation - a representative from the opposition party) says that it's time to re-think the way the government spends it's security money because of the "massive expenses and minimal effectiveness". I mean, if you spent that kind of money and only caught eight out of 269 robbers, you wouldn't be thrilled either.

Of course, there's always the counter argument, offered by a member of the Home Office (translation - an employee of the Department of Justice....or maybe Homeland Security....well, it's somewhere between those two), who said the cameras "help communities feel safer."

Oh. Well in that case I guess you can go ahead and do whatever you want.

Of course, I do have to say that in public places, I don't have any real problem with security cameras. Philosophically, its no different from having a cop stand on every corner. But since security cameras are the cheaper option, cities tend to use them instead. Then again, being cheaper does not mean it's a good use of money. In this case it's clearly not.