????視頻監(jiān)控是門大生意，而且還會(huì)變得更大。執(zhí)法部門使用閉路電視（CCTV）攝像機(jī)確認(rèn)了上周波士頓爆炸案的犯罪嫌疑人之后，國(guó)會(huì)議員和監(jiān)控措施支持者再次呼吁在全美各地增加攝像頭的數(shù)量。

????“我們需要更多的攝像頭，現(xiàn)在就需要，”《石板》雜志（Slate）一篇報(bào)道的標(biāo)題寫到。

????紐約州共和黨眾議員彼得?金對(duì)此深以為然。他在爆炸案發(fā)生后接受MSNBC廣播公司記者安德里亞?米切爾采訪時(shí)強(qiáng)烈呼吁加大視頻監(jiān)控，唯如此，我們才能“比恐怖分子先行一步。”

????他說：“是的，我非常贊同增加攝像機(jī)的提議。”身為美國(guó)眾議院國(guó)土安全和情報(bào)委員會(huì)委員的彼得?金還呼吁加強(qiáng)對(duì)美國(guó)穆斯林的監(jiān)控力度。“這些裝備是了不起的執(zhí)法手段。我再次強(qiáng)調(diào)，視頻監(jiān)控可以讓我們掌握先機(jī)，比恐怖分子先行一步。這些家伙時(shí)時(shí)刻刻都在尋思著要我們的命。”

????幾乎可以肯定的是，紐約市的執(zhí)法官員非常愿意幫這個(gè)忙。紐約市警察局（NYPD）局長(zhǎng)雷?凱利希望“顯著增加”曼哈頓的監(jiān)視設(shè)備數(shù)量。曼哈頓現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)是美國(guó)監(jiān)控體系最完善的地區(qū)之一。

????贊成加強(qiáng)監(jiān)控的觀點(diǎn)直截了當(dāng)，顯而易見。波士頓等地發(fā)生的恐怖事件警示我們，我們其實(shí)很容易受到傷害，非常脆弱。這種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，遏制爆炸案這類恐怖事件的最佳方式就是在公共場(chǎng)所實(shí)施24小時(shí)監(jiān)控。看到有人被炸彈彈片致殘那一幕時(shí)，所謂的隱私問題聽起來是那么地冰冷而抽象。

????當(dāng)然，再多的安保措施也無法徹底消除風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，因此我們很難知道合理的界限究竟在哪里。10,000個(gè)攝像頭的安保效果真的就比5,000個(gè)攝像頭好兩倍嗎？現(xiàn)在，悲劇的余波還未完全散盡，我們很難就安保投資額度究竟應(yīng)該有多大這個(gè)問題展開一場(chǎng)嚴(yán)肅的討論。但是，一旦防范目標(biāo)變成盡可能地把風(fēng)險(xiǎn)降低到趨于零時(shí)，相關(guān)開支就有可能漸漸擴(kuò)大到無窮大。

比不良資產(chǎn)救助計(jì)劃和新政的規(guī)模還要大

????美國(guó)對(duì)于這種困境并不陌生。為了響應(yīng)911事件后美國(guó)人對(duì)安全的關(guān)切，聯(lián)邦政府慷慨地打開了錢袋，一個(gè)龐大的國(guó)內(nèi)安全體系由此產(chǎn)生。根據(jù)瑪?shù)賮?克雷默和克里斯?海爾曼發(fā)布在Tomdispatch網(wǎng)的報(bào)道，911事件后，聯(lián)邦政府用于國(guó)土安全的開支超過了7,900億美元，規(guī)模比不良資產(chǎn)救助計(jì)劃（TARP）和剔除通脹因素后的羅斯福新政（New Deal）還要龐大。

????我們無法獲悉美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)監(jiān)控開支的確切數(shù)據(jù)。市政當(dāng)局不是特別樂意公開已經(jīng)安裝的攝像頭數(shù)量。許多情況下，國(guó)土安全補(bǔ)助計(jì)劃并不要求各大城市提供它們各自運(yùn)用聯(lián)邦資金的明細(xì)開支。

????盡管如此，美國(guó)的投資已經(jīng)帶動(dòng)全球視頻監(jiān)控行業(yè)強(qiáng)勢(shì)增長(zhǎng)。根據(jù)市場(chǎng)研究機(jī)構(gòu)Electronics.ca Publications 于2011年發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告，到2015年，視頻監(jiān)控市場(chǎng)的規(guī)模預(yù)計(jì)將從2008年的115億美元增長(zhǎng)至375億美元。

????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.