4 ms·

So, did you just make up the number?

wruza 9y ago
Most is not a number. Upd: for more specific details: https://thebreakthrough.org/generation_archive/effectiveness_of_cctv_surveill https://thebreakthrough.org/generation_archive/effectiveness... http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.650481 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.65... Just few of dozens with proper citation and research, for those who need it. This one is for UK known as very serious in police regard, afaik: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39183003 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39183003 And finally, this one is world-wide. Scrolling through 2016 on mobile may be pretty enlightening or frightening, depending on your views: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thwarted_Islamist_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thwarted_Islamist_te...
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  > Most is not a number. ...You said "98%". It's right there.
  - wruza 9y ago
    Someone also said "free like in beer" but it wasn't beer. Your arguments to the point (not to misinterpreted words) are still welcome, though I'm pretty tired now that three different persons put a honk and lost in fog. Cool argumentation, dudes, hold it like that.
    - adamlett 9y ago
      So the answer is yes, you did make up the number. Thank you.
      - wruza 9y ago
        I assume you have no viable internet connection to follow provided links, so citing may be useful: >Additionally, the CCTV has had only a 3-15% success rate in identifying suspects of crime, burglary, etc. Given the generous assumption of equating the cameras' ability to stop crime to stopping terrorism, there would still only be a 15% success rate at the most. Counter-terrorism methods must be 100% effective or people will be murdered. This seriously impacts the argument that CCTV surveillance (as it is being done currently) would be able to effectively stop terrorism. Hope these non-made up numbers clear some details on topic, my negative friend.

Most is not a number. Upd: for more specific details: https://thebreakthrough.org/generation_archive/effectiveness_of_cctv_surveill https://thebreakthrough.org/generation_archive/effectiveness... http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.650481 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.65... Just few of dozens with proper citation and research, for those who need it. This one is for UK known as very serious in police regard, afaik: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39183003 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39183003 And finally, this one is world-wide. Scrolling through 2016 on mobile may be pretty enlightening or frightening, depending on your views: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thwarted_Islamist_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thwarted_Islamist_te...

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> Most is not a number. ...You said "98%". It's right there.
- wruza 9y ago
  Someone also said "free like in beer" but it wasn't beer. Your arguments to the point (not to misinterpreted words) are still welcome, though I'm pretty tired now that three different persons put a honk and lost in fog. Cool argumentation, dudes, hold it like that.
  - adamlett 9y ago
    So the answer is yes, you did make up the number. Thank you.
    - wruza 9y ago
      I assume you have no viable internet connection to follow provided links, so citing may be useful: >Additionally, the CCTV has had only a 3-15% success rate in identifying suspects of crime, burglary, etc. Given the generous assumption of equating the cameras' ability to stop crime to stopping terrorism, there would still only be a 15% success rate at the most. Counter-terrorism methods must be 100% effective or people will be murdered. This seriously impacts the argument that CCTV surveillance (as it is being done currently) would be able to effectively stop terrorism. Hope these non-made up numbers clear some details on topic, my negative friend.