Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance

You knew it was coming. Former DHS official Stewart Baker got the ball rolling with his atrocious attempt to portray the ACLU and the EFF as hacker-and-terrorist sympathizers.

 
A few politicians bravely read the tea leaves (while the tea was still brewing!) and declared the Boston bombing to be Exhibit A in the argument for tougher immigration laws.
Now it’s time for those who love surveillance cameras to stand up and claim a piece of this tragedy as their own. An article in the Wall Street Journal collects a few quotes from some political camera enthusiasts who believe this successful manhunt justifies increased surveillance by law enforcement.

“They had to piece together I don’t know how many thousands of videos,” said Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who is on the House Committee on Homeland Security. “I think CCTV [closed-circuit television] cameras are much more needed in urban areas.”

The FBI and police already had “how many thousands of videos,” and yet it’s still not enough. More cameras are “needed.” King continues this line of thinking in an interview with MSNBC.

So, I do think we need more cameras. We have to stay ahead of the terrorists and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that. So yes, I do favor more cameras. 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.

Constantly? That’s an interesting ridiculous take on reality. (The odds of an American being killed by a terrorist attack are effectively zero.) King must spend plenty of sleepless, terrorized nights chatting with Mike Rogers, whose fear of hackers prevents him from catching any shuteye. Either that or he’s been chatting with the FBI and the NYPD who it seems can barely go a week without creating andshutting down another terrorist “plot.”
[Peter King worries about terrorists… but only if they’re Muslim. He’s perfectly fine with white Irish terrorists, seeing as he went on record during the 80s stating his support for the IRA, which notably bombed a shopping center during the Christmas season, killing six and injuring 90. He was very concerned about their civil rights. Those were his kind of terrorists. These ones, not so much.]
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg also feels the bombing in Boston justifies extensive surveillance in New York City… or more than it already has.

“The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we’ve made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this past week. He added the network now has the ability to “alert police to abnormalities it detects on the street, such as an abandoned package that is left on a corner.”

Personally, I could do without the “terrible reminders” and the “investments.” Bloomberg claims the tragedy justifies the surveillance, but there’s very little effort being made to curtail either sides of this false equation. New York law enforcement seems to spend most of its time hanging out in mosques or shoving non-white male youths up against the nearest wall for a little of the old stop-and-frisk.
There’s a chicken-and-egg thing going on here. Apparently, we “need” to increase surveillance because awful things happen. But when awful things fail to happen, no one in the surveillance “community” takes the time to wonder if perhaps the current surveillance efforts might be excessive. Surveillance, like any other vehicle of government control, only expands over time. Various government agencies will once again be asking you to trade privacy for security. The problem is these agencies can’t promise security. The only thing they can truly guarantee is “taking” your privacy.