crime

16 security cameras installed on Akihabara streets

91 Comments

In a reaction to the 2008 stabbing rampage in Akihabara, the Kanda-Suehiro-cho neighborhood association installed 16 security cameras on streetlamps in the area Tuesday. These are the first surveillance cameras to go up in the Akihabara area.

After the June 8, 2008 incident, community leaders met with local police and Chiyoda Ward representatives to look into installing the cameras. The cameras cost nearly 10 million yen to purchase and install, a hefty price tag that was subsidised by both the prefectural government and the ward.

The cameras were also installed with hopes that the heightened security would provide a feeling of safety and stave off crime, attracting more people to the area, said an association spokesperson.

Another neighborhood association formed by local shop owners is planning to have a network of 35 security cameras installed in the area near Akihabara Station by the end of March.

The man arrested for the massacre, Tomohiro Kato, 27, will make his first court appearance on Thursday.

© News reports

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


91 Comments
Login to comment

This could mean the end of dirty old men chasing 'French Maids' on the streets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This guy that sparked these camera's intended to kill himself anyway. How on earth would camera's have stopped him?

This makes as much sense as those blue lights on the subways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bamboohat, if the cameras were there, help would have come much faster and some lives could have been saved

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if the cameras were there, help would have come much faster and some lives could have been saved

You mean if the camera's were there, there was somebody monitoring REAL TIME, and there were police and ambulances on standby just in case something like the stabbing that would have happened.

In all likelihood, these cameras are like all other security camera's and connected to recording device to catch the criminal AFTER THE FACT.

These camera's would not have saved one life, nor would they have prevented a suicidal maniac. All they would have done is lulled the shoppers into a false sense of security, like lambs to a slaughter.

The truth of he matter is, these camera's are there FOR IMAGE ONLY, to make shoppers feel more safe, so they'll spend more money.

The cameras were also installed with hopes that the heightened security would provide a feeling of safety and stave off crime, attracting more people to the area

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if the cameras were there, help would have come much faster and some lives could have been saved

only if there is some one watching them, and not a fat guy sleeping on his desk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

maryhinge

This could mean the end of dirty old men chasing 'French Maids' on the streets.

Ha ha. Funny. Dirty old men don't visit maid shops. It's young geeky losers that have no confidence/life that go to maid shops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good idea, get it on camera from 16 different angles, sell it to the news channels!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Incident - June 8, 2008 First court appearance - This thursday (Jan. 28, 2010)

...and this is Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2020 Thanks for the info, I must admit I have not been there for yonks. I will hitch up my skirt and pay a visit soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if the cameras were there, help would have come much faster and some lives could have been saved

From Kato first ploughing into the pedestrian precinct with his van to his being disarmed and detained by police was just a couple of minutes. It's unlikely cameras would have brought help any faster.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20080616-OYT1T00459.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The death of privacy in exchange for addressing fears.

By the time someone realizes that a crime is happening by camera, it will be too late to save lives or prevent harm. All it can hope to do is ID the one who gets away.

I for one am not happy living my life on camera. Every shop, many streets and most public places. Even the small hometown where I grew up has cameras on every street crossing now.

Privacy is dead. Orwell could never have imagined the extent to which we are being watched.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If this is only done due to the 2008 incident, well, the horse has already bolted and it is too late now.

If I remember correctly, that guy from 2008 had a deathwish and just wanted to kill as many people as he could. I fail to understand how cameras like these would prevent a similar incident from occuring again especially if the person just wishes to injure people and isn't worried about the consequences.

How many times have seen the murders cases when the suspect says (for example), "I wanted to have the experience of killing someone", or, "I didn't care who I hurt, anyone would have done"? These cameras will be useless to prevent such crimes.

And if they are there to prevent bag snatching ... I hardly think 10 million would be worth it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cameras don't prevent anything, they only record it. As someone mentioned earlier, they would have to hire someone to sit there and watch the screen 24/7 for it to even speed up a reaction, but the crime would not have been prevented. I would hate to be the sucker that took the monitoring job. The bottom line is that the cameras are not a crime prevention measure, but an investigative tool after the fact, to help incompetent police to get the real criminal without having to make someone else confess to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So they were installed that the next time a psycho cuts some people up the news will have footage of it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the TV stations should have paid for the installation, they'll benefit the most from it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

16 security cameras installed on Akihabara streets

Why this euphemism? Called it what it is, surveillance cameras. All who read JT are all old enough to handle the harsh reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They should attach guns to the cameras, so the camera operator can pick off random stabbers and litterers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"They should attach guns to the cameras, so the camera operator can pick off random stabbers and litterers".

... with laser sights on them I hope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surveillance cameras in Akiba? That's a load of tosh and a waste of dosh.

I visited Akiba on Sunday, and I felt safe and sound - even in the overpriced, overheated Yodobashi shop with its overbearing expert sales pushers. It's fun to walk around, browse and people watch - just as it always has been - one event excepted.

Minor translation problem: "subsidised by both the prefectural government and the ward" - Tokyo is not a prefecture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are they being watched or just recording? Who is watching them? Police? It doesn't say....Just recording is not going to help anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not bad, especially if these cameras will have the face scanning incorporated in them now or upgraded later. It's always good to have the government and paying corporation have track of where you are and the ability to target you for the best shopping deals in your exact location. If so, hope that the general public didn't pay for these (yeah, right!).

Wouldn't it be more cost efficient and beneficial to just put a couple more beat-cops there?

Just like Japan playing follow-the-leader and "me to" with the UK and US for the pole position in the Orwellian race to the bottom.

finger prints at the ward office prints and face scan at the airport a camera on every corner....

I feel safer already knowing that our money is well spent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are a few naive people here who think this has anything to do with security. The fundamental of this story is the sweetheart deal of 10 million yen in the back pocket of a security firm (with the de facto 10% sleazy Japanese politician kickback) for cameras that will serve zero purpose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To all the naysayers, this will increase security, like it or not. Of course they could have had no effect on the Akihabara incident, and of course they cannot stop a crime in progress. But they will make some people think before committing crimes, and some of them will just give up the crime, and it will aid in catching some criminals as events will be more clearly recorded.

The question is, how much effect will it have? I should think not much. Its not like surveillance cameras in convenience stores. The effect will be so little in fact that neither the price nor the loss of privacy is worth it. I can only hope that the first victims recorded by the cameras will be the cameras themselves, as they get torn down by people practicing civil disobedience.

Its hard to say whether this is a Big Brother type move, or just a pony show by politicians to make people think they are doing something in the wake of the Akihabara incident, as if there is anything anyone could have done about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hoserfella has a good point to. Somebody is making a lot of money off this, possibly even the politicians selling our right to privacy, and getting it through kickbacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we should get the style of cameras Blair's government installed in some areas of Britain, where a faceless voice will shout atyou through a loudspeaker if the unaccountable bureaucrat monitoring the comings and goings of the citizenry doesn't like what you're doing.

There should be one installed in every room, like in 1984. What a wonderful freedom we'd enjoy then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Besides the fact that these 'security' cameras will do little to reduce crime, there is no logic whatsoever in their reasoning. --a psycho mass murderer went on a rampage in that area so if we put in some cameras, it will be safer.--HUH? If they said they did a study which showed that there has been an increase in crime in Akiba and other studies have shown that cameras can serve as a deterrent so we decided to put surveillance cameras in the area...at least then we might believe they were actually concerned about the public's safety rather than just doing the easiest thing to make people feel safer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cameras are mainly used as a deterrent and identify suspects, however in the event a shooting of stabbing is witnessed on the screen and there is no one there to place an emergency call, then it makes good sense. Perfect example; someone lay dying on the side of the road after a hit and run and is alive when found 3-4 hours later, but dies at the hospital because they were not brought in sooner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the camera operator is not too busy ogling the frilly skirts...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, nobody can go back and change the past. But ... my experience tells me that many criminals in Japan are actually chicken and would not want their actions recorded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Canada has hit the panic button due to vandals or whatever during the Winter Olympics so there are a maze of cameras being watched to whoever. So I would not be surprized that we would give Akihabara streets AND they will not come down, but be upgraded due to age.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But they will make some people think before committing crimes,"

I think this is nonsense. Cameras exist in all kinds of shops yet we still have crimes. They exist in most public places yet we still have crime. And people looking to go out by killing others are not going to care if there are cameras or not.

Fear, we live in an age where fear rules us. We solve society's problems based on fear and based on addressing the exception rather than the rule of incidence. We give up privacy for the illusion of security. We give up rights for the illusion of protection and we give up liberty for the illusion of big brother watching over us.

Reality check. Cameras to do not stop crime. Cameras cannot intervene in and attack. Cameras violate our personal and community privacy. And the surrender of privacy and rights for protection is wrong.

We should be finding ways to address the social and mental motivations for violent crime. We should be spending this money to employ people who won't then need crime to survive.

21st century humanity are becoming frightened, weak and spineless sheep who are too afraid of everything. You cannot avoid death in this life. But you can live with liberty and privacy. And that should be the rule of reason over the rule of fear that so defines this current world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: I think this is nonsense. Cameras exist in all kinds of shops yet we still have crimes.

Yes we do. Now please go find a dictionary and look up the word "some".

Fear, we live in an age where fear rules us.

Fear rules some of us. And that is why some people are deterred by mere cameras.

I agree with your post. Its pretty much what I said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: Good post! I agree. This is a fear-based action. The tragedy that happened in Akihabara could have happened anywhere. So following that reasoning, they could argue that we need surveillance cameras everywhere! I think it can become a vicious cycle--the perception that there is more crime leads to more people living in fear which means more people demanding more security and more arrests by the police which leads to more people who are labeled criminals which leads to media writing about more crime which creates the perception that there is more crime. Whew!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

10 million yen to purchase and install these cameras?? I bet that being Akiba and all, they could have them bought and installed for much cheaper by one of the locals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surveillance cameras are going in everywhere. Just look up. You might be amazed. The Panasonic dome cameras are all over the Osaka subway now. Each with an individual processor brain, face recognition. The camera inside can whip around. Connected together they communicate with each other to follow you from one, to the next, to the next. This they do idly. Now consider that they also have a "lean function" and it starts to get pretty invasive. The Panasonic WV-CW380 pictured above has no brain. But, if they've got a series of 16, and looking at the price, it's more than likely they've got a few.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Using a tragedy as an excuse to make a buck. Nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The man arrested for the massacre, Tomohiro Kato, 27, will make his first court appearance on Thursday.

Only 1.5 years after the event. Nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And that is why some people are deterred by mere cameras.

Based on years of experience in the U.K. this argument is wrong. Surveillance cameras had no positive impact on reducing the number of crimes as the British government published in 2009.

Not to forget, these cameras are monitored not by the police but by neighborhood watch groups. So who is supervising and controlling those?

Why have the citizens gown to such pussies? Afraid and obedient, thus easy to manipulate; they roll over on command like puppies. "Fahrenheit 451" becomes more real by the day. Many thanks to all the so afraid supporters; may a strong brother help you to live your little lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stipend: if you are right on the model, then one of those costs approx 83,000 yen (trade discounts available). So, that's 1,336,000 yen for 16 cameras, out of ten million yen spent, which leaves a few million yen for pocket lining. Hope the cost pays off for the ward taxpayers, ne?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oh, and the blurb says:

Our cameras are designed to capture high resolution images like the human eye – regardless of highly contrasted lighting conditions within a scene, in direct sunlight or the dim of night.”

right down to your eyes!
0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've heard that the police and locals don't like the "indecent idols" posing for cameras on Sundays. Maybe this is the crime they are referring to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yes we do. Now please go find a dictionary and look up the word "some"."

Your some are essentiall irrelevant. As I said you are solving for the exception at the expense of the many. The very few who would care about the camera are most likely no danger to anyone. Maybe you are solving for a few minor crimes. Then you must balance the cost vs the benefit. And it it clear that the cost in both money and further invasion of privacy makes no sense at all.

This kind of irrational fear is driving our society to give up privacy and freedom for a falce promise of security. What we should be doing with this money is using it to really benefit society. Japan's health care system needs improvements, unemployed or underemployed people need jobs, homeless people need food and shelter and single moms need support. None of these issues are exceptions to the norm. On the contrary, the define a growing portion of Japanese society. Yet we are more concerned about the one off nut job than we are about the many needy people right in front of our faces.

Fear should be put aside for more level headed thinking. And accept the fact that some things will happen regardless of your cameras or precautions. That is reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Steen: "stipend: if you are right on the model, then one of those costs approx 83,000 yen (trade discounts available). So, that's 1,336,000 yen for 16 cameras, out of ten million yen spent, which leaves a few million yen for pocket lining. Hope the cost pays off for the ward taxpayers, ne?"

Don't forget cabling, power provision, network control units, monitors, monitor station equipment, people to monitor them, installation costs and I am sure proprietary contractors that need to take each tiny piece of the project due to regulations and agreements. That adds up a lot over the cost of the units alone.

Next you can start to add in the cost to manage and run them over time. Keeping them working, replacing defect parts, repairs from other causes, support agreement contracts and staffing. The one time cost is just a drop in the ocean when doing this kind of thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Security is a growing, self serving fear mongering industry. It's an oxymoron come to think of it. Panasonic is Osaka based. Are all cities receiving as many cameras as I've seen in the Osaka subway?

If folk at home are employed to monitor, then they're going to know my schedule easy. Hmm.. maybe they can bring some soup for me when I call in sick then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: Your some are essentiall irrelevant. As I said you are solving for the exception at the expense of the many. The very few who would care about the camera are most likely no danger to anyone. Maybe you are solving for a few minor crimes. Then you must balance the cost vs the benefit.

I would be much obliged if you read all of my original post. Our opinions are basically the same, but its no use saying there is zero benefit. Some is relevant because only "some" will be deterred and we will have only "some" benefit. And I balanced the cost and benefit quite clearly in that first post. The paltry benefits do not nearly justify the cost in privacy or in money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Exactly. You mean this is really the FIRST appearance in court by this crumb? These aren`t wheels of justice, more like broken gears with broken teeth machinery of justice with the power turned off.

And the cameras?

Sure, they MAY help the police catch the bad guy after he kills a few, but not before.

Too bad for the few.

And then the cameras are just there watching your every move.

Like London with millions of these things.

Creepy.

Just what Big Brother wanted for Christmas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whay are people so bothered about cameras in public places? If you aint doing anything wrong, whats the fuss about? Im happy to have them around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if the cameras were there, help would have come much faster and some lives could have been save

You can't be really serious with this comment. Please explain your statement...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The hypocrisy of this just hit me. Taking photographs of people in public (nothing dirty or violating) is frowned upon because it goes against people's privacy, but throwing up some video cameras to watch everyone 24/7 is meant to make people feel safe?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Bamboo and Cleo said. The answer is fewer psychos, not more cameras or absurd and unenforcable knife laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Whay are people so bothered about cameras in public places? If you aint doing anything wrong, whats the fuss about? Im happy to have them around."

Because we should have a choice of whether to be on camera or not. And that choice should not be limited to staying home or not.

People no longer value privacy. This is tragic. It is naive to think that surrendering privacy is not harmful. The potential for abuse is extreme. Likewise the violation of our individual rights to choose who will film and or photograph us are being stripped away by people who are forcing their decisions and agenda upon all of us.

I don't want to be on film or on camera unless I elect to do so. Unwarranted public cameras violate this tenant and strip us of our privacy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but I just cant get that worked up about the idea of someone filming me as I walk around. You can honestly film me as much as you like. I think cameras are a good idea, they wont prevent much crime but hopefully they can help us catch people that do break the law.

Also, Ive seen cctv used in the UK to prevent drunk drivers. The cctv camera sees a clearly drunk person staggering toward their car and getting in, police are on the scene before the dd gets the chance to pull away. Ill give up some of my privacy to have even just one less drunk behind a wheel. cctv has also been used to alert police to potential fights breaking out etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dbung10. I respect that you don't mind. The question is what about those of us who do? Are our rights any less valid than yours? If the law says you cannot take my photo without permission, or use it without permission, then why is it ok for so many places to film us without our permission. And why don't we have a vote in defining when and why we can be filmed?

Sure there are a lot of potential benefits, but at the cost of privacy, why can't we have a say in it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All our rights are just as valid. I just dont see why anyone has the right to not be filmed if it is for the greater good of society. I think it would be wrong for me to follow you around with a video camera, but I dont think its wrong for a trained professional to sit in an office looking at video feed from cctv cameras. I cannot understand why there is the desire for this 'privacy' in public places. People are looking at you, why cant there be a guy in an office looking at you through a camera lense too? seriously are the two any different?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how many ojiisans and taxi drivers are going to be caught on camera, relieving themselves outdoors. Gag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The average person is caught on camera 20-30 times a day anyway. So, what's the big deal? My only comment is, imagine the difference if they were installed in 2007. Let's shut the gate after the horse has bolted, shall we?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you for wasting even more of my tax money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they put them all online it might not seem like such a waste of money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2-21st century humanity are becoming frightened, weak and spineless sheep who are too afraid of everything.

Humans haven't changed much instinctively since they emerged 200000 years ago. The 20th Century was hardly a beacon of light for the future and the 21st hasn't started off much better. We can probably look forward to another century of war and disaster just like all the other centuries. I do agree with your sentiments, however. We are heading deeper and deeper into a 1984 type scenario.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cameras will not stop crime and it certainly wouldn't have stopped that stabbing rampage. if anything it might encourage something like that cause those guys don't care if they caught and may actually want to be on camera. they just makes it easier to catch the criminal after the fact.

as for privacy. if you are out on a public street where anyone can see you how can there be an invasion of privacy? there is no expectation of privacy. if you want privacy go to a love hotel. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"as for privacy. if you are out on a public street where anyone can see you how can there be an invasion of privacy? there is no expectation of privacy. if you want privacy go to a love hotel. :)"

And yet if someone says don't take my photo they have recourse if you do. You do have privacy in public. You have been sold a definition of privacy that enables this kind of public monitoring. Our parent's generation would never have stood for being watched 24/7 by cameras everywhere because they viewed their movements around the city as a part of their private lives. They would have been upset to see an unauthorized camera pointed their direction. And they would have been right to do so.

In film and media you cannot film people's faces without permission. If someone on screen decides to go after you for filming them without a waiver, they have a strong chance of winning damages. Likewise people taking photos or filming individuals must have signed permission to use the footage or photos in any way.

Yet a company or the city can film everyone they want to and use that footage in any way they see fit. This is a violation of privacy.

You let fear and the fallacy of security encourage you to give up your right not to be on camera all day. And there is a greater danger here that people are also not talking about in this thread. And that is the danger of having the state able to watch over your shoulder. This discourages dissent and it enables the state to monitor the movements and activities of its citizens without warrant or cause. Totalitarianism historically begins from often simple misteps by socieites. This Orwellian world of universal cameras and monitoring is a potentially very dangerous mistep.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My only comment is, imagine the difference if they were installed in 2007.

What difference? Kato described himself as being 'tired of life'. I doubt the thought of being caught on camera would have stopped him. The idea of finally being noticed by someone could be more of an incentive for the same kind of nutter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good idea

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You let fear and the fallacy of security encourage you to give up your right not to be on camera all day. And there is a greater danger here that people are also not talking about in this thread. And that is the danger of having the state able to watch over your shoulder. This discourages dissent and it enables the state to monitor the movements and activities of its citizens without warrant or cause. Totalitarianism historically begins from often simple misteps by socieites. This Orwellian world of universal cameras and monitoring is a potentially very dangerous mistep.

or you could just take it at face value, understand that the government / police thinks this will help them catch criminals and not assume that everyone in a position of power is in some way evil and wants to take over the world.

Its not all a big conspiracy mate.

Also please answer the original question that two people have raised - how is someone looking at you through a camera any different to someone looking at you directly. Do you feel violated if someone looks at you walking down the street? Does this take away some of your rights? Or do you assume that any one of them could be a State operative, reporting back to Big Brother on your every move?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't mind the cameras as long as the public has the same access to the footage that law enforcement does. Fat chance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world is overcrowded and especially in a city like Tokyo it's okay to (kind of) control the masses. As long as I'm not filmed at home, I see not so much anti-privacy in the cameras. I will still pick my nose in public, if I feel like...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These cameras are NOT going to be recording the intersection where Kato did his slash attack? Why the heck NOT THERE? Seems that would be the FIRST place to monitor. Oh well, more money down the drain, human rights following right behind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but I dont think its wrong for a trained professional to sit in an office looking at video feed from cctv cameras

The operators are not professionals, but members of a private "neighborhood watch group" that will contact police if they spot something they think is offensive. Hence -in simplifying it- it is like I put a video camera on my balcony to film the residence and call the police if I spot something unusual. The rest of the day I enjoy watching what my neighbors do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how is someone looking at you through a camera any different to someone looking at you directly.

Again, if it is a law enforcement officer there is not much argument here, but these cameras are not watched by professionals. Please read some of the more detailed reports on the matter, to find out who is actually looking at the footage.

Plus, it is different if someone is watching you with his/her own eyes compared to recording you and storing the footage, what they have to, to use it as evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What are you going to be doing in the street that you don't want people seeing , anyway? coming out of an Akiba porno store? Like people seeing you do that on video would make any difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would a camera stop a madman from murder? I don't know that it's stopped crime in Britain. It helps catch people after the fact, yes. Pickpockets beware! But if you are hell bent on carnage I doubt you are worried about being caught on tape. You might even like the idea that your rampage is preserved for posterity.

Guess I have little objection to the cameras but I don't think they would have stopped Kato or any freak like him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

saborichan: What are you going to be doing in the street that you don't want people seeing , anyway?

Printing underground newspapers against a corrupt government. I would rather be able to do that before they get the cameras up and running. Or how about dodging the draft for a future war? Smoke pot, which most of us here agree is ok, but you can still get arrested for. Or simply run for political office against a murderous incumbent who managed to get people to track my comings and goings using those cameras.

The funny thing about privacy is, you don't value it until you find you really need it. By then its too late. Rather than look at your humdrum life today, how about having a look at the past and what happened when governments squashed privacy? Imagine if Hitler had a nice camera system. The life of Anne Frank would have been shorter, Otto might not have survived the war. Insugencies against him might have failed, but they would have only been less successful for this. That would have messed up the Dutch and French undergrounds too. Imagine if NK had this system. The people of that backward place seem to survive off of breaking the rules.

This is just not necessary. Its overkill. And once the cameras are up, then the debate about what to do with the footage will appear over and over. Its asking for a whole lot of potential trouble just to put a bandaid on a papercut. Its like suspending a wreckingball over your house to discourage unwanted guests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is learning from the UK. Put cameras everywhere!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone notice how many cameras are on Japanese roads? Not just speed cameras, but other kinds of cameras. Whole rows of cameras above expressway roads and regular streets. Yes, like the UK, Big Brother is watching. Quiet, continuous sets of eyes recording everything, everyone. No wonder why people here are so nervous all the time. You'd be too, if you were constantly being watched.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is not good. To J-walk is personal choice. I ALWAYS wait for the light -just me, and I'm satisfied. I don't need to be coerced by a camera. Take away a person's sense of free will and they go into depression. (i'm setting an example for kids in my neighbourhood, and yeah it's a different story when I'm on the bicycle)

And who is watching? Heightened surveillance increases the potential of abuse of authority. Once power is given it is rarely give up. It's creaping away from us little by little..

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” - Ben Franklin

So we give up privacy for what real benefit? Street crime moves down a block (if there was any to start!). My TAX money goes into pockets of contractors, middlemen and politicians. It's the 21 century! We've survived this long. Actually we'd do well to learn from Germany of the 1930's, and Communist Russia. Anyone teaching? Read them 1984, or watch it online.

Surveillance / Summaries of Discussions: http://www.lkwdpl.org/cffr/polsumm.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

waste of money. id much prefer if they finally installed gates at platforms of every station.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have never felt unsafe at any time in Japan, and I feel 10 million is a bit steep for 16 cameras, im with XXXXX, put that money towards gates on the train and subway platforms, only train line I've seen them on is Tsukuba Express.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The cameras cost nearly 10 million yen to purchase and install, a hefty price tag that was subsidised by both the prefectural government and the ward.

Another neighborhood association formed by local shop owners is planning to have a network of 35 security cameras installed in the area near Akihabara Station by the end of March

So, they're gonna pay another 350 million yen for the reinforcement of the security system. Whew!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm with poindextrose15. 10 million yen for 16 security cameras?? In AKIHABARA? These people seriously got ripped off by an Akiba electronics store. Or did they hold all of their meetings concerning this thing in a maid cafe?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congratulations, As usual japanese quick respone time. Only 1 and a half years later! What its japan! You have to have 3 meetings do the paperwork, another few meetings alittle more paperwork and then "tabun" maybe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone notice how many cameras are on Japanese roads? Not just speed cameras, but other kinds of cameras. Whole rows of cameras above expressway roads

A lot of those, in the north of the country at least, are there to monitor the weather so that they can assess the best time to send out the snow ploughs with minimum disturbance to the flow of traffic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, interesting to know. I guess it's because UK weather is criminally bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

10 million Yen for 16 cameras.........Shit I`m in the wrong business, and in the Akihabara district too, things not as chaep as I thought there.

I wonder if there is one in the Ladies toilet at the train station....well you never know!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops, my bad. It says 10 million yen for all the 16 cameras installed. And, they're gonna spend additional +10 million yen for the rest of video-cameras to be installed. Still expensive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cameras in Akihabara? Who would have expected that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In Britain for example, only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV...and there are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people! Now you have to ask yourself, if it doesn't work in Britain, why would it work here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True, these cameras are just to make people feel safe, and possibly to record criminals' movements after a crime's taken place.

I can't see how 10 million yen worth of video cameras will prevent the rare occurrence of violent crime like the tragedy which occurred a year and a half ago.

Though, it's obvious that the middle-man who brokered the video camera contract and the video camera company, profited from this deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The price of installing the cameras probably included compensation/rental to the owners of the shops/buildings where they were installed

0 ( +0 / -0 )

something about lightening striking twice in the same place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gates? how about escalators in Shinjuku station so that we can easily travel. Carrying full bags up flights and flights of stairs just sucks. Safety cameras... who is watching? how many does 1 person watch at a time? Sounds like the police are giving some good bonus money to their friends security company. Was there an open bid? Where companies given the opportunity to bid on these projects? Seeing they are the police, I'm sure that the mafia here had their hands in it. Setting up the cameras in places to not interfere with the legitimate Japanese mafia activities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites