DeletedUser
Okay, here's the thing.
The year is 2015. There are ULTRA High Definition cameras available and yet even in this day and age, all CCTV cameras seem to have been manufactured in the 70s!
Now I always say that CCTV can indeed help to reduce crime and even help solve crimes and yet governments insist on using cameras of such low-quality that you literally cannot identify any individual unless they are standing about 3 feet away from the camera and looking directly into the lens.
Does anyone know why - other than cost and government cut-backs - why governments do not replace all of these badly outdated cameras with decent ones?
I mean with today's technology, they should be able to see a bead of sweat on a person's forehead let alone be able to identify someone.
Take the bombing in Bangkok. The quality is rubbish so this guy will - in all likelihood - get away scot-free. So I have to ask, what's the point?
So I say again, why don't they just replace them all?
The year is 2015. There are ULTRA High Definition cameras available and yet even in this day and age, all CCTV cameras seem to have been manufactured in the 70s!
Now I always say that CCTV can indeed help to reduce crime and even help solve crimes and yet governments insist on using cameras of such low-quality that you literally cannot identify any individual unless they are standing about 3 feet away from the camera and looking directly into the lens.
Does anyone know why - other than cost and government cut-backs - why governments do not replace all of these badly outdated cameras with decent ones?
I mean with today's technology, they should be able to see a bead of sweat on a person's forehead let alone be able to identify someone.
Take the bombing in Bangkok. The quality is rubbish so this guy will - in all likelihood - get away scot-free. So I have to ask, what's the point?
So I say again, why don't they just replace them all?