If you're like us (and we bet you are) you've got umpteen million friends instagram-ing and otherwise digitally enhancing their lazy photographic masterpieces. Camera phones are great for tweeting pictures of that cute thing your cat did, of course, but for the amateur iPhotographer in your life that is secretly itching to get their hands dirty with a roll of film and a hard shutter button, why not buy them what they really want: an actual camera with some film in it. more ›

It was with some interest that we read Chuck Nevius's latest column on security cameras in the City. The reviews of the cameras have been mixed at best, with the most recent incident involving the use of camera footage to prove that an accused man was innocent, and that the witnesses in the case were somewhat less than reliable. On the other hand, the cameras have done very little to solve crimes, possibly because the footage quality is terrible, nobody watches them live, and the tapes are erased after seven days because of storage limitations. Limitations? When a 500 GB drive is under $100? more ›

Ever since those shiny yet useless crime cameras were installed around the city's areas of concern back in '05, there has "only been one arrest attributed to the $900,000 spy system since they were put up." What's more, they scare no one, it seems, so the "scarecrow strategy," sucks. Awesome. And unlike D.C. and Rochester who have people watching the crime cameras, SF does not Or rather, didn't. See, yesterday the Board of Supes voted to eliminate funding for the cameras, which means that in addition to the security cams NOT working harder than ever before, we cannot afford to pay anyone to take them down. Smile. more ›

Choppy footage: San Francisco Police Department via the Chron more ›

Traffic cameras coming to Market and Octavia? more ›