It's 2005.

Cameras are everywhere. Almost every new piece of technology - MP3 players, cell phones, electronic organizers to name a few - comes equipped with at least a low-quality digital camera.

Many of the images from the April 2-3 disturbances came from camera phones. So it's not unlikely or unreasonable to expect more security cameras to pop up in the country.

Of course, this pressure to create a more secure environment with video cameras comes after the bombings in London almost three weeks ago. Surveillance footage helped pinpoint the exact cause of the attacks, as well as suspects.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has even asked New York subway officials to place more security cameras in the underground transportation tunnels.

The issue of violating privacy shouldn't come up during this. These cameras will be placed in public areas to offer one of the best forms of evidence during any sort of investigation. Most of us probably expect to be on tape in many department stores and hotels anyway. And let's face it; if you don't want to be videotaped doing something, you most likely wouldn't be doing it in a public place.

Sure, they most likely won't steer a determined terrorist away, but a small-time criminal might be deterred from robbing a convenience store. Images have helped catch and convict kidnappers, rapists and robbers. And that's what they should be for. The added measures certainly are reactive after the bombings in London scraped too close to a still-frightened America, but it's a move that should be taken regardless of the trigger.

According to The Associated Press, Chicago's crime rates decreased to the lowest they've been in 40 years after more security cameras were installed. The added security personnel and funding is, in our minds, worth it.

The images on a surveillance camera don't lie. And they will help keep this country safer in an unobtrusive, simple way.