For a brief moment on Sunday, eyes were fixed on the image of a balding white man changing his t-shirt in Times Square. It was reported that authorities were searching for this man, who was thought to possibly have connections to the car bomb attempt at one of New York’s busiest intersections. But he was the wrong guy. Poor guy. Turned out that particular piece of tape was useless. But was his privacy violated?

On today’s tech segment, we took a look at the efficacy of surveillance cameras. According to our guest, Bruce Schneier, security technologist and author, “Cameras don't have a preventative effect on crime, they don't reduce crime rates, measurably. At best, they move crime around.”

Digital editor, Jim Colgan took to Manhattan’s well-surveilled streets to see if people cared that they were being recorded. Pointing out surveillance cameras, he asked them what they thought.

Takeaway listeners also had a lot to say on the topic.

Listener, Roberta Shacker called in from Atlanta Georgia to say, “We have money to be bailing out somebody. Why don't we instead use funds to put many people to work in security positions and train people to have a heightened sense of security while cooperating with mainstream individuals."

Another caller says, “Cameras are like a cease and desist order or a whatever. If you're gonna violate it you're gonna violate it. They don't prevent anything. All it does is allow big brother to watch where he shouldn't be watching."

And Alicia from Manhattan, says, "my take on the security camera says it was a street vendor who found the car bomb. To heck with the security cameras what we really need is more street vendors."

Listeners left comments on The Takeaway website:

Mike from Arlington, Mass. writes: "The man seen in the video in Times Square taking off his shirt wasn't the guy who did the deed. It was old fashioned police and forensics work that exposed the would be bomber, and of course, the bomber's ineptitude. It made for great TV, but it had nothing to do with the capture."

Jordan writes: "A camera might keep a kid from stealing gum at a convenience store, but it will not prevent a terrorist from carrying out far deadlier activities. Also, this question assumes the authorities would use the cameras responsibly and be on the lookout for terrorists. How can we be assured the cameras will not be used to spy on Americans doing nothing wrong?"

And several people quoted Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Those who are willing to forfeit liberty for security will have neither."

We also got a round of responses on Facebook, most saying that if cameras make us safer then we should live with them.
 
Patricia Della-Piana: "Let them put cameras anywhere they want. I'm not doing anything criminal, so I have nothing to hide. I approve."

Jason Chubb Veith: "I believe that cameras are a useful law enforcement tool, but I would hate to see cameras replace good old fashion police work. I am afraid that too much reliance would be placed on the cameras and our police officers would become more like b ticket writers."

Norris Dupré: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ruth Fitzgerald: "Big Brother is watching. And that is the price we pay for safety. With this age and place everything and everyone is under surveillance; whether at work, the gas station, times square, facebook, or the grocery store. The only place we aren't under surveillance is our homes. And I am pretty ok with that."

And, finally, Hugh Appet writes on Facebook, “Yah, wish they'd had them in the Gulf of Mexico.”

We’ll leave it at that.

As always, you can join the conversation. Comment on any of the stories you’ve heard on The Takeaway website, call in to 877-8-MYTAKE, check out our Facebook page, and follow us on Twitter.