摄像头时代的是与非

    几乎无处不在的闭路电视摄像头是后911时期安保投资的一个显而易见的遗产。根据美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）提供的数据，仅纽约市曼哈顿这一个地区就有超过4,000部摄像头。芝加哥互联互通的公共和私人摄像机大约在10,000部左右。但如果在国际范围内进行比较的话，美国的监控设施依然有很大的增长空间。在堪称电子眼天堂的伦敦市，监控摄像头的总量估计已经高达50万。

    但近些年来，美国政府已大幅收紧了划拨给州和地方的安保资金。联邦政府拨付给各州的国土安全专项补助金已经从2003年的20亿美元下降到了去年的2.94亿美元。鉴于联邦预算的自动减支机制已经生效，这些资金可能会受到进一步的挤压。

    让众议员彼得•金颇为担心的是，联邦政府似乎已经不那么重视安保事务了。反恐战争还没有结束，“削减国土安全开支是非常鲁莽的行为，”他在接受MSNBC广播公司采访时这样说道。

    批评人士指出，太多的资金被拨付给了一些小州，安保专项补助金也缺乏适当的监督。大量的资金被一点点地浪费掉了。

    实际上，911事件爆发后的几年中，有些安保开支之愚笨令人叹为观止。印第安纳州有个县竟然用价值30万美元的电子应急留言板——你知道，提醒社区对付各类突发事件是这些设备的唯一用途——为志愿消防队的鱼苗做起了广告。密歇根州西部的某些县动用国土安全专项资金购买了13台制作果味冰霜卷的设备。

电子眼够多了，但脑子呢？

    暂且不论浪费问题。一个至关重要的问题是，监控投资是否真的让美国人更加安全。波士顿爆炸案犯罪嫌疑人出现在闭路电视镜头里的时候，一些批评人士迫不及待地指出，瞧瞧，这就是实施密集监控的价值所在。

    只不过波士顿并不是一个受到严密监控的城市。这座城市的监控体系与纽约或芝加哥相差甚远，根本就不是一个级别的。正如马萨诸塞州的美国公民自由联盟2011年12月发布的一份报告所详细列举的，波士顿至少有55部用于执法的摄像头，周围城市有92部，地铁系统大约安装了600部。去年，马萨诸塞州只收到了400万美元的国土安全补助金。按人均计算，马萨诸塞州获得的国土安全补助金数额在全美各州中仅位列第34位。

    然而，在马拉松爆炸案发生后，波士顿居民和执法部门做出了英勇的回应。一系列监控手段同时上阵，包括：公共和私人闭路电视摄像头、手机摄像头和目击证人等等。犯罪嫌疑人很快就被锁定，其中一位被警方击毙，另一位则被生擒。倘若波士顿的摄像头是现在的两倍，甚至十倍，是否能够更快地锁定犯罪嫌疑人？一个规模更庞大、更加集中的监控体系是否就一定能对他们产生震慑作用，使他们不敢轻举妄动？或许更为重要的问题是，执法部门是否就因此而具备了阻止炸弹爆炸的能力？

    The post-9/11 investment legacy is apparent in the near-ubiquitous presence of law enforcement CCTV cameras. For instance, New York City has more than 4,000 cameras in Manhattan alone, according to the ACLU. Chicago's linked public and private security cameras number around 10,000. But based on international comparisons, there's still a lot of room for U.S. surveillance to grow. In London -- the Xanadu of winking, digital eyes -- surveillance cameras total an estimated half-million.

    In recent years, however, the spigot of U.S. federal funding for state and local security has tightened. Homeland security grants earmarked for states dropped from $2 billion in 2003 to $294 million last year. With federal budget sequestration coming into effect, those funds may be further squeezed.

    Rep. King fretted at the lack of federal commitment. The war against terror is not over, he told MSNBC. "And it's foolhardy to be making cuts in Homeland Security...."

    Critics say too much of the money has been directed to small states and that grant programs lack suitable oversight. Too much money, they say, has been frittered away.

    Indeed, in the years after 9/11, some expenditures were spectacularly brainless. An Indiana county used its $300,000 Electronic Emergency Message Boards -- to be used solely to alert the community of, you know, emergencies -- to advertise the volunteer fire department's fish fry. Western Michigan counties used homeland security dollars to purchase 13 $900 Sno-Cone machines.

Plenty of eyes. What about brains?

    Waste aside, the question is whether surveillance investment can actually make Americans safer. When the Boston bombing suspects appeared on CCTV footage, some commentators saw it as evidence of the value of dense surveillance.

    Except Boston is not a heavily surveiled city. Compared to New York or Chicago, it's a fly-weight, and lacks the centralized, government-coordinated surveillance systems of other urban areas. As detailed in a December 2011 report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts, there are at least 55 law-enforcement cameras in Boston, 92 in surrounding cities, and approximately 600 in the metro system. Last year, Massachusetts received only $4 million in state homeland security grants. In per capita terms, it ranked 34th in the country in homeland security grant spending.

    Yet in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings, residents and law enforcement responded valiantly. A range of surveillance methods were used: public and private CCTV cameras, cell phone cameras, eye witnesses. The suspects were quickly identified, and killed or apprehended. If Boston had twice as many cameras, or 10 times as many, would the suspects have been identified more quickly? Would a larger, more centralized surveillance system have deterred them? Perhaps most importantly, would law enforcement have been able to prevent the bombs from going off in the first place?