> New York/London/Chicago would rank highly as areas people feel safe walking around at night in. I thought NY/Chicago doesn't have as much CCTVs in narrow str

> New York/London/Chicago would rank highly as areas people feel safe walking around at night in. I thought NY/Chicago doesn't have as much CCTVs in narrow streets as South Korea? Was interested in this: NY(784km^2) has about 2000 cameras that NYPD deployed (~3 cameras/km^2). Seoul(605km^2) had about 48697 cameras that the metropolitan government has installed (~80 cameras/km^2). > Or, similarly, it would suggest that people would not feel safe walking around in areas in Korea that do not have extensive CCTVs. Basically, every street you can go to has CCTVs in Seoul. The portion of streets without CCTV installed is absurdly low. > Mass surveillance does not provide much benefit but comes at extreme risk of abuse. I agree that there is a big risk of abuse here; but I have to disagree with the point that CCTVs provide little benefit. CCTVs allow the arrest rates of 'the five violent crimes' (Murder, robbery, rape, theft, violence) go up from 79% in 2011 to 100% in 2016. 87% of all people agrees to install more CCTVs, 12% thinks that the current CCTV is appropriate; and only 1% thinks that there are too much CCTVs. IMO, keeping an eye on the government whether they are using CCTVs inappropriately is a better choice than just insisting on not installing CCTVs.