That is because CCTV does not directly decrease crime. Instead, it tries to increase the chance the alleged criminal gets seen, profiled, and caught later on which means the alleged criminal won't be able to commit crime for a while due to jail time.
Mass surveillance and CCTV are notoriously bad at avoiding crime or terrorism from happening on the short term though, and as long as there is incentive to either, they'll remain happening.
But they keep rolling out the security blanket. Someone is making a mint selling CCTV.
It would be better if we stopped letting the terrorists win repeatedly by completely changing our society in response.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-...
It was the case of most of the terrorists who've attacked France those last years.
Have you tried to buy a large ladder lately? They come covered in so many warning stickers you'd think you were buying pesticide. Snowmobiles come with fewer warnings.
Whilst one has had significantly more resources spent on it than the other, you do have to wonder - would spending the same on ladders make much difference? Is the ladder safety market saturated and the invading foreign nations not?
They went to Syria and stared in a beheading video
to:
Went to a couple of sermons by a dodgy cleric
It would be comical were it not for people dying.
My take is it's utterly irrelevant. The chance, even with Daish and current events, of dying in a terrorist attack are less than by falling off a ladder. Something like 20 times less. It's firmly down there with the silly and odd causes of death. I see no war on ladders.