London and New York have roughly similar populations, but not similar surveillance footprints. London has an estimated 940,000 cameras compared to New York's roughly 70,000 cameras.

One global study of 130 major cities ranks London fourth worldwide for closed-circuit television (CCTV) density at 399 cameras per square kilometer.

London is the most surveilled city outside of Asia.

CCTV is a system that sends footage to restricted monitors rather than public broadcast. London’s vast CCTV network did not appear overnight; it grew in response to decades of terrorism.

The Provisional Irish Republican Army’s bombing campaign, which stretched from 1969 until the 1994 ceasefire, targeted London, Manchester, and other British cities.

The "Provisionals" split from the older IRA over strategy because they believed that only an armed struggle could end British rule in Northern Ireland.

As bombs exploded in shopping districts and financial centers, surveillance became politically acceptable. Cameras were sold to the public as a defensive necessity.

By the 1990s, CCTV had evolved from a counterterrorism measure into a standard policing tool. After 9/11, Western governments expanded surveillance and intelligence networks even further.

In moments like these, it is worth remembering that the Founders argued openly about the dangers of concentrated power.

In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton insisted that national power must be “commensurate with the objects entrusted to it,” above all defense against foreign and domestic threats.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison reassured skeptics that, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

In Federalist No. 41, James Madison acknowledged that, "A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution."

In Federalist No. 48, Madison warned that "power is of an encroaching nature" and must be restrained from exceeding its limits.

The tension between Hamilton and Madison was not over whether threats were real.

It was over whether a republic could build the tools it needed for security without allowing those tools to expand beyond their necessity and endanger liberty.

Chief Justice John Marshall later interpreted federal authority broadly in decisions such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), reading the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause expansively.

The United States operates with a written Constitution, a strong First Amendment, and dense Fourth Amendment case law that create friction against unchecked monitoring.

Britain’s legal tradition rests on parliamentary sovereignty and proportionality balancing under ordinary legislation and human rights law.

Public-space surveillance has faced fewer structural barriers in the United Kingdom.

The IRA campaign that once justified early CCTV expansion effectively ended with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. In 2005, the Provisional IRA formally ended its armed campaign and decommissioned its weapons under international supervision.

Yet the cameras remained.

Emergency powers expand quickly and contract slowly. This pattern is not new.

During World War II, Britain armed itself with sweeping emergency powers under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1939. According to the UK Parliament's website, "The Act was supposed to be in force for only a year but (using extensions) it actually stayed in force until 1964."

Economist William Niskanen demonstrated that bureaucracies, when acting rationally, tend to maximize budgets because they face no market competition.

Security agencies are no exception: without explicit limits, they will expand unless challenged.

Even if America and Israel defeated the Iranian regime as decisively as the UK defeated the Provisional IRA, I don’t think we could roll back this post-9/11 security structure.

London's cameras are not just a story about Britain. They are a warning.

Our liberty depends not only on defeating our enemies abroad, but on ensuring that the extraordinary powers we grant ourselves in times of danger do not become permanent features of our society.

I hope the United States and Israel can achieve their military objectives in Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) rests on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Iran is a signatory to the treaty and is therefore legally obligated not to pursue nuclear weapons.

No signatory should be permitted to violate the treaty, but Iran presents a uniquely dangerous case.

Senior Iranian leaders, including the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (1939–2026), have repeatedly used hostile rhetoric toward Israel. Khamenei described Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that must be “removed and eradicated.”

When a government that speaks about eliminating another state advances toward nuclear threshold capability, those threats must be taken seriously.

Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer. His work focuses on foreign affairs, national security, and presidential history. He's been published in numerous outlets. Read more Robert Zapesochny Insider articles — Click Here Now.