Been following the discussion on security cameras in Lancaster, something on which I’m ambivalent; Citydweller puts forth a decent case here, and I’ve actually had this argument with some others. But the way I see it, what does a security camera mounted on a telephone pole see that a uniformed officer walking the beat or sitting in a squad car wouldn’t?

I understand the whole Orwell argument, but there’s a difference between public and private spaces, isn’t there? When government declares its intent - it’s right - to peer into private spaces, to read your e-mail and intercept all your phone calls and check to make sure you’re on the up and up, that’s unquestionably the police-state mentality. The security cameras, on the other hand, see what that cop walking the beat might see, though they obviously don’t come and go as the cop might; and there may indeed be questions about who watches the watchers, the civilian employees who get to monitor the feeds.

Then again, at least we don’t have the Washington D.C. plan. Yet:

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

As Matt Y. notes, it seems to work well in Baghdad.