The paragraph that follows is a direct quote from Ginger McCall:
“It isn’t necessarily how we found the Boston Marathon bomber. There were a lot of things going on there … eyewitnesses identifications, cameras that were not government-owned (often cellphones) and eventually the fingerprints of the older brother … if the cameras were really successful, there would be no crime in London.”
Yes, Ginger an extreme privacy advocate, actually declared there would be NO crime if security/surveillance cameras are effective. That is like saying we should get rid of any police force that allows even a single crime to occur! She seems to be unaware of the fact that some deterrence is better than no deterrence which is a point of view championed by John Stossel.
Have you ever wondered why privacy zealots try to defend their point of view so tenaciously? Maybe to keep their lesbian tryst top secret or their affair with the gardener unknown to their husband. After all, what husband would want to be informed that his wife actually has louder more intense orgasms with another sex partner.