I've discussed the sales of security hardware before. Here's an excellent little essay on the balanced use of surveillance cameras. The author not only "gets it," he puts it right through the X-ring.
"Assume your organization is more interested in prevention than apprehension.
This is the private sector security model as contrasted with the public safety model. The latter has a societal objective of chasing down offenders to capture and punish them and, by doing so, demonstrate to society at large that crime does not pay.
[Incidentally, this public safety bias limits the ability of most police to operate surveillance cameras solely for prevention. Their invariable tendency is to use them more for investigation. Also, because they hired on to chase malefactors, watching cameras or defending assets are unattractive to cops in their prime.]
In the context of running a business or even a public institution, however, few organizations can afford the resources for this hunt. Instead, their security functions earn their keep by preventing losses – which cost significantly less in time and staffing than trying to shadow the responsibilities of a police force without the same powers of arrest or investigation."
Be sure to read the entire essay by Nick Catrantzos, Adjunct Professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who also writes at his All Secure blog and No Dark Corners website. His Master's thesis, No Dark Corners: Defending Against Insider Threats to Critical Infrastructure (not free) was published as a CRISP report (free) by ASIS International. Nick seems to be a very interesting fellow.
Homeland Security Watch knocks another one out of the park.