摄像头时代的是与非

    视频监控是门大生意，而且还会变得更大。执法部门使用闭路电视（CCTV）摄像机确认了上周波士顿爆炸案的犯罪嫌疑人之后，国会议员和监控措施支持者再次呼吁在全美各地增加摄像头的数量。

    “我们需要更多的摄像头，现在就需要，”《石板》杂志（Slate）一篇报道的标题写到。

    纽约州共和党众议员彼得•金对此深以为然。他在爆炸案发生后接受MSNBC广播公司记者安德里亚•米切尔采访时强烈呼吁加大视频监控，唯如此，我们才能“比恐怖分子先行一步。”

    他说：“是的，我非常赞同增加摄像机的提议。”身为美国众议院国土安全和情报委员会委员的彼得•金还呼吁加强对美国穆斯林的监控力度。“这些装备是了不起的执法手段。我再次强调，视频监控可以让我们掌握先机，比恐怖分子先行一步。这些家伙时时刻刻都在寻思着要我们的命。”

    几乎可以肯定的是，纽约市的执法官员非常愿意帮这个忙。纽约市警察局（NYPD）局长雷•凯利希望“显著增加”曼哈顿的监视设备数量。曼哈顿现在已经是美国监控体系最完善的地区之一。

    赞成加强监控的观点直截了当，显而易见。波士顿等地发生的恐怖事件警示我们，我们其实很容易受到伤害，非常脆弱。这种观点认为，遏制爆炸案这类恐怖事件的最佳方式就是在公共场所实施24小时监控。看到有人被炸弹弹片致残那一幕时，所谓的隐私问题听起来是那么地冰冷而抽象。

    当然，再多的安保措施也无法彻底消除风险，因此我们很难知道合理的界限究竟在哪里。10,000个摄像头的安保效果真的就比5,000个摄像头好两倍吗？现在，悲剧的余波还未完全散尽，我们很难就安保投资额度究竟应该有多大这个问题展开一场严肃的讨论。但是，一旦防范目标变成尽可能地把风险降低到趋于零时，相关开支就有可能渐渐扩大到无穷大。

比不良资产救助计划和新政的规模还要大

    美国对于这种困境并不陌生。为了响应911事件后美国人对安全的关切，联邦政府慷慨地打开了钱袋，一个庞大的国内安全体系由此产生。根据玛蒂亚•克雷默和克里斯•海尔曼发布在Tomdispatch网的报道，911事件后，联邦政府用于国土安全的开支超过了7,900亿美元，规模比不良资产救助计划（TARP）和剔除通胀因素后的罗斯福新政（New Deal）还要庞大。

    我们无法获悉美国国内监控开支的确切数据。市政当局不是特别乐意公开已经安装的摄像头数量。许多情况下，国土安全补助计划并不要求各大城市提供它们各自运用联邦资金的明细开支。

    尽管如此，美国的投资已经带动全球视频监控行业强势增长。根据市场研究机构Electronics.ca Publications 于2011年发布的一份报告，到2015年，视频监控市场的规模预计将从2008年的115亿美元增长至375亿美元。

    Video surveillance is big business. Expect it to get bigger. After law enforcement used closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to help identify last week's Boston bombing suspects, lawmakers and surveillance advocates renewed calls for increased numbers of cameras nationwide.

    "We need more cameras, and we need them now," ran a Slate headline.

    Rep. Peter King (R-NY) agrees. In an interview the day after the bombings with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, he called for more video surveillance so that we can "stay ahead of the terrorists."

    "So yes, I do favor more cameras," said King, who sits on the U.S. House Homeland Security and Intelligence committees and has also called for increased monitoring of Muslim Americans."They're a great law enforcement method and device. And again, it keeps us ahead of the terrorists, who are constantly trying to kill us."

    Law enforcement officials in New York are almost certain to oblige. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly wants to "increase significantly" the amount of surveillance equipment in Manhattan, which already has one of the country's most robust systems.

    The argument for greater surveillance is straightforward. Horrible events in places like Boston remind us that we're vulnerable. The best way to limit events like last week's bombings, the argument goes, is to accept 24-hour surveillance in public spaces. And when you see someone maimed by bomb shrapnel, privacy concerns sound coldly abstract.

    No amount of security can completely eliminate risk, so it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Are 10,000 cameras really twice as good as 5,000? In tragedy's aftermath, it can be tough to have a serious conversation about how much to invest. But when the goal is to push risk as close to zero as possible, spending can asymptotically stretch into infinity.

Bigger than TARP and the New Deal

    The U.S. is no stranger to this dilemma. In response to security concerns after 9/11, Americans witnessed the growth of a massive domestic security apparatus, fueled by federal largesse. According to Tomdispatch's Mattea Kramer and Chris Heilman, post-9/11 federal spending on homeland security exceeds $790 billion. That's larger than TARP and, when adjusted for inflation, the New Deal.

    Exactly how much the U.S. has spent on domestic surveillance is murky. Municipalities aren't particularly keen on sharing how many cameras they've installed. And homeland security grant funding, in many cases, does not require a line-item accounting of how cities have used federal funds.

    Nevertheless, U.S. investment has helped fuel the growth of a global video surveillance industry. According to a 2011 report by Electronics.ca Publications, a market research firm, the video surveillance market was slated to grow from $11.5 billion in 2008 to $37.5 billion in 2015.