TL;DR. le videocamere danno un senso di sicurezza che è tutto da dimostrare. Non esistono dati che dimostrino una efficacia complessiva. Il saldo netto non pare essere positivo, a fronte di cosgi molto elevati
Source: MIT Technology review
It’s often suggested these cameras work to deter crime. Studies are inconclusive on this point. There does seem to be an effect on closed public spaces like parking garages and subways, but in some cases crime seems to be merely displaced, increasing in areas with fewer cameras…..
Not long after the 2020 elections, the new mayor of Marseille called for an audit of video surveillance in the city. The council is still sitting on the study, which was delivered in October, but preliminary findings were published in the local newspaper The Provence. There are 42 dedicated agents; at any given time, fewer than five are on duty, and each is responsible for 35 screens. The system is not cheap; the newspaper highlighted the cost of installing each camera (over €20,000 per device), renting the optical fiber (€6.5 million a year), and maintaining the cameras, including cleaning and replacing bulbs (€2.8 million a year). Many of the images are not of good enough quality to use. And 272 cameras—over 15% of the total—are rarely consulted.
“It’s techno-solutionism. There’s a political problem, and they promise to find a technology—an app—to bring it under control,” says Tréguer. “It is very expensive, and it uses a chunk of taxpayers’ money to implement solutions that are dangerous for freedoms, increase control, and are in part ineffective.”
Continua qui: Marseille’s battle against the surveillance state | MIT Technology Review