"Although the British may be used to 24/7 surveillance nearly everywhere they travel, at least in those cases they can fool themselves into believing that the only eyes on the other end are those of a bored security guard."
Was that sentence really necessary? Quite apart from being highly opinionated, it's also very inaccurate. Yes, there are security cameras around, but they're not even remotely close to being "nearly everywhere", and the vast majority of those which do exist are privately owned. If people and businesses want to protect their property with them, why shouldn't they? And exactly who else's eyes are "on the other end" that we should be worried about?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
treetrunk @ Dec 31st 2006 5:22PM
"Although the British may be used to 24/7 surveillance nearly everywhere they travel, at least in those cases they can fool themselves into believing that the only eyes on the other end are those of a bored security guard."
Was that sentence really necessary? Quite apart from being highly opinionated, it's also very inaccurate. Yes, there are security cameras around, but they're not even remotely close to being "nearly everywhere", and the vast majority of those which do exist are privately owned. If people and businesses want to protect their property with them, why shouldn't they? And exactly who else's eyes are "on the other end" that we should be worried about?