Big Nanny is watching you.  And she’s gonna find out if you’re naughty or nice.  U.S. Surveillance Society Running Rampant.

So what are taxpayers getting for that $300 million in federal money?  A mixed bag:

“Violent incidents do not decline in areas near the cameras relative to areas further away,” added the study, which noted the cameras helped police bring charges against six people accused of felony property crimes. “We observe no decline in violent crimes occurring in public places.”

But the report did show that, over the past two years, property crimes such as burglary and muggings dropped an estimated 24 percent in areas within 100 feet of San Francisco camera locations.

That’s nice if you live near a camera, but what else?  Fewer sleepless nights for some, according to Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU.

“It’s the illusion of security … public authorities like to give the impression they are doing something about crime and terrorism,” Steinhardt said.

Sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite.

In a related article, Glen Reynolds of Instapundit points out that although privacy is a relatively new cultural concept, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:

There’s a difference, though. In the old days, ordinary people didn’t have much privacy, but neither did big shots. By contrast, today’s government officials and big corporations often want to watch us, but they don’t want to be watched in return. Shopping malls are full of security cameras, but many have signs at the entrance telling customers that no photography or video recording is allowed. Police cars have dashboard cameras, cities and counties are posting red-light and speed-limit cameras, and it seems that the dream of many government officials is to put every public space under 24-hour video watch. But try shooting photos or video of police or ­other public officials as they go about their business and you might find yourself in wrist restraints.

So what’s his conclusion?  When you’re fighting an army of darkness, it helps to have an Army of Davids on your side:

Under the law, citizens have no right not to be photographed in public places. So why should people who make their living on the taxpayers’ dime enjoy greater freedom from public scrutiny than the taxpayers themselves? Civil liberties groups have begun supporting the trend toward a video-enabled populace. The Eastern Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sends out volunteers with cameras, though they have faced police hostility at times.

Over the long haul, such efforts may be superfluous. The widespread availability of digital cameras and video-capable cellphones means that ubiquitous surveillance on the part of the little guys is moving, if anything, even faster than ubiquitous surveillance on the part of the big boys. And distribution tools like YouTube make it easier to get the footage to a large audience.

I think that’s a good thing. Today’s pervasive surveillance may seem like something out of 1984, but access to technology has become a lot more democratic since Orwell’s time. Big Brother had a network of security cameras, but could that oppressive regime have survived a network of cellphones?

I give it to the texters, hands down.

On the other hand, there is the entertainment value.  From Hot Air, coming to a cable channel near you:  Blagovision.

Hope it’s not Pay-Per-View.

H/T Instapundit