Damn, Orwell was smart.

Recently I was listening to talk radio program on the CBC. The issue of closed circuit cameras in public places to "prevent" crime was being discussed. Most of the people in favour of the cameras felt their civil liberties being infringed was worth the personal safety they felt with the camera presence. Many of the people against the cameras felt there are more effective ways to deter criminal activity, without infringing on civil liberties. Either way, Orwell was smart.

Truth be told, I don't exactly know what I feel about it. Simple truths, crime is bad and no one should feel unsafe in their own city. On the other hand, has our society deteriorated to the point that we need to be watched 24 hours a day in order to act correctly, or to feel safe?

The cameras have had some some positive results in the U.K, where they are used in certain trouble spots in and around London. What is frightening though, is whether the efffectiveness of these cameras at reducing crime in public spaces will then be used as a justification to place them in what we deem to be more private spaces. This could range from residential street corners or even certain homes. Both Canada, the U.S and Britain have wrongfully arrested certain individuals suspected of terrorism. Would we use these cameras to monitor residences of "suspected terrorists" or other individuals perceived to be societal threats?

Definitely a slippery slope issue. We are always moving closer and closer to a Big Brother model of society. At war with Europe one day and another territory the following. The placement of cameras in public spaces would reduce crime, but only in areas with cameras. Crime would then find a new home not under the watchful eye of BB, would we follow it anxiously with more cameras?