[Paul Atreides]

I know for a fact that a rape occurred in broad daylight at the parking lot of the local mall. In another instance, I was approached by a man, claiming that his wife was in labor and needed to go to the hospital, right at that moment. He seemed really eager for me to give him a ride to where his "wife" was located. Yet, he would not go back in the mall and call for help. I even offered to give him some change to make the call. Then, I told him that I would call an ambulance for them. He refused and started walking away. At first, I started to just go on my merry way. Then, I thought about what might happen if he tricked some poor unsuspecting person. I called the mall security and they came out to question him. He took off like a scalded dog.

Also, if the photos are such poor quality, and work to the favor of the perp, then why are you so worried?

[Brices Crossroads]

"Why are you so worried?"\

I am not worried. I merely make the observation that such surveillance is of limited value both as a deterrent and as a subsequent aid in the prosecution of criminals. Having been a prosecutor for a number of years, I can tell you that defense attorneys use these photos, in conjunction with temporo mandibular experts to testify that the photo, even if it resembles the defendant, is not him. Such surveillance does not deter and is generally counterproductive to the prosecution. It undercuts the eyewitnesses.

You may choose to overlook the potential for abuse, but it is there. During the 2000 presidential election, some Democratic operative got hold of a picture of President Bush, who was then a private citizen, picking his nose at a baseball game. And it was put up on the internet. I think that was an invasion of his privacy. And you can imagine how surveillance cameras used in public places, the subset of which are ever expanding, could be tools of similar abuse. The point is they neither make you safer nor are they helpful in convicting the defendant. So why use them?