There are much better ways to reduce criminality that don't violate our privacy. As long as those solutions haven't been tried seriously, as they have worked in other countries, then there is no justification for this.

Maybe start with that obvious little thing.. People not having guns means people not being shot at chicken restaurants, hence less crimes to solve. It does really work here in Europe even though it's not perfect - yes some criminals still have guns. But the big effect is someone being spotted on the street with a gun = insta-arrest + jail time for possession.

I know proposing it is political suicide there, but when I see what BLM have accomplished in awareness I did think some spontaneous movement like that would happen too in the gun debate, after the xx'th senseless mass shooting.

Also, the other obvious thing (also starting to bite Europe in the backside in all fairness), is the huge income equality leading to crime life.

what prompted the chicken restaurant bit of your comment?

The source article. In particular this passage:

"They hailed the cameras as a game-changer, and said the images helped to identify the suspected gunman who shot three employees, killing one, last year at an Otay Mesa Church’s Chicken"

thank you sorry i missed that bit

I'm surprised that the powers-that-be are greedy enough to not involve the judicial branch. Lock the video away until there is a warrant! It's not like your right to privacy in your home or phone calls extends past a warrant.

> I always find these stories interesting, because, frankly, these cameras I'm sure DO help catch criminals very effectively.

Data from the UK disagrees with this hypothesis.

They found that CCTV camera usage had no correlation with crime reduction.