????幾乎無處不在的閉路電視攝像頭是后911時期安保投資的一個顯而易見的遺產。根據美國公民自由聯盟（ACLU）提供的數據，僅紐約市曼哈頓這一個地區就有超過4,000部攝像頭。芝加哥互聯互通的公共和私人攝像機大約在10,000部左右。但如果在國際范圍內進行比較的話，美國的監控設施依然有很大的增長空間。在堪稱電子眼天堂的倫敦市，監控攝像頭的總量估計已經高達50萬。

????但近些年來，美國政府已大幅收緊了劃撥給州和地方的安保資金。聯邦政府撥付給各州的國土安全專項補助金已經從2003年的20億美元下降到了去年的2.94億美元。鑒于聯邦預算的自動減支機制已經生效，這些資金可能會受到進一步的擠壓。

????讓眾議員彼得?金頗為擔心的是，聯邦政府似乎已經不那么重視安保事務了。反恐戰爭還沒有結束，“削減國土安全開支是非常魯莽的行為，”他在接受MSNBC廣播公司采訪時這樣說道。

????批評人士指出，太多的資金被撥付給了一些小州，安保專項補助金也缺乏適當的監督。大量的資金被一點點地浪費掉了。

????實際上，911事件爆發后的幾年中，有些安保開支之愚笨令人嘆為觀止。印第安納州有個縣竟然用價值30萬美元的電子應急留言板——你知道，提醒社區對付各類突發事件是這些設備的唯一用途——為志愿消防隊的魚苗做起了廣告。密歇根州西部的某些縣動用國土安全專項資金購買了13臺制作果味冰霜卷的設備。

電子眼夠多了，但腦子呢？

????暫且不論浪費問題。一個至關重要的問題是，監控投資是否真的讓美國人更加安全。波士頓爆炸案犯罪嫌疑人出現在閉路電視鏡頭里的時候，一些批評人士迫不及待地指出，瞧瞧，這就是實施密集監控的價值所在。

????只不過波士頓并不是一個受到嚴密監控的城市。這座城市的監控體系與紐約或芝加哥相差甚遠，根本就不是一個級別的。正如馬薩諸塞州的美國公民自由聯盟2011年12月發布的一份報告所詳細列舉的，波士頓至少有55部用于執法的攝像頭，周圍城市有92部，地鐵系統大約安裝了600部。去年，馬薩諸塞州只收到了400萬美元的國土安全補助金。按人均計算，馬薩諸塞州獲得的國土安全補助金數額在全美各州中僅位列第34位。

????然而，在馬拉松爆炸案發生后，波士頓居民和執法部門做出了英勇的回應。一系列監控手段同時上陣，包括：公共和私人閉路電視攝像頭、手機攝像頭和目擊證人等等。犯罪嫌疑人很快就被鎖定，其中一位被警方擊斃，另一位則被生擒。倘若波士頓的攝像頭是現在的兩倍，甚至十倍，是否能夠更快地鎖定犯罪嫌疑人？一個規模更龐大、更加集中的監控體系是否就一定能對他們產生震懾作用，使他們不敢輕舉妄動？或許更為重要的問題是，執法部門是否就因此而具備了阻止炸彈爆炸的能力？

????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?