That’s what this ENTIRE conversation is about… the (ostensible) trade off between surveillance and security.
In the case of an attack, I’d wish for a gendarme not a recording that would let me relive the experience.
That’s what this ENTIRE conversation is about… the (ostensible) trade off between surveillance and security.
In the case of an attack, I’d wish for a gendarme not a recording that would let me relive the experience.
Right, and I was saying it's wrong not to want surveillance in a super public area like a train station.
A gendarme is worse in every way.
The gendarme might actually arrest the attacker. The security camera will do nothing (but record). And having the policeman standing there is about as much a deterrent as a "Smile--You're Being Recorded" sign.
> The gendarme might actually arrest the attacker.
So might the cops we already have in such places.
> The security camera will do nothing (but record).
Exactly as intended.
> And having the policeman standing there is about as much a deterrent as a "Smile--You're Being Recorded" sign.
This seems like a weird thing to say. Cops are more of a deterrent than a gendarme.