sure, they mention in the article that they have photos, but the message i got from the article is that having the cameras be real would somehow be of benefit b

sure, they mention in the article that they have photos, but the message i got from the article is that having the cameras be real would somehow be of benefit because they help you track down the criminals. to me, it seems very doubtful that the argument presented has any merit. they are described as a 'security gap' in the title and repeatedly in the article, but the evidence supporting that viewpoint is entirely absent. (i should clarify that its not a worthless argument, just the example used to present it contains evidence only for the counter-argument as far as i can see)