![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
HK ACID RAIN, PART 3
ITEM: The Mong Kok Acid Bomber struck again last night. One bottle dropped at the corner of Nelson and Sai Yeung Choi streets , 24 injured – including a four-year-old.
The twist: the attack happened just five hours after the police switched on newly installed security cameras covering the area.
The police are reviewing the video footage for clues, though if the perp knew he/she would be on camera, they may have thought to wear a hat and sunglasses.
Which is worth mentioning because the Hong Kong police don’t use public surveillance cameras. Most buildings install them privately, and police will use the footage if someone commits a crime on tape, but they don’t have their own surveillance camera network like, say, the UK does.
They made an exception for Mong Kok because of the acid bomber, but the third attack pretty much proves that as a deterrent to crime, surveillance cameras aren’t very effective. Still, if they manage to ID the perp, it’ll be money well spent, though hopefully that won’t encourage the govt to build its own UK-style “Ring Of Steel” in the name of protecting the public.
Bruce Schneier has more on the surveillance camera issue, if yr interested.
BACKGROUND: Info on the first two attacks here and here.
Can’t stand the rain,
This is dF
The twist: the attack happened just five hours after the police switched on newly installed security cameras covering the area.
The police are reviewing the video footage for clues, though if the perp knew he/she would be on camera, they may have thought to wear a hat and sunglasses.
Which is worth mentioning because the Hong Kong police don’t use public surveillance cameras. Most buildings install them privately, and police will use the footage if someone commits a crime on tape, but they don’t have their own surveillance camera network like, say, the UK does.
They made an exception for Mong Kok because of the acid bomber, but the third attack pretty much proves that as a deterrent to crime, surveillance cameras aren’t very effective. Still, if they manage to ID the perp, it’ll be money well spent, though hopefully that won’t encourage the govt to build its own UK-style “Ring Of Steel” in the name of protecting the public.
Bruce Schneier has more on the surveillance camera issue, if yr interested.
BACKGROUND: Info on the first two attacks here and here.
Can’t stand the rain,
This is dF
no subject
On the other hand, if my building has a private security camera (we don't) in the lobby, maybe we would have caught the person who kept stealing the flowers there!
no subject
The interesting question to me is whether the public would welcome that much surveillance if the govt had been honest enough to admit that the object wasn't to prevent terrorism/crime but to catch people after the fact.