Well, I thought that fact was well known.

"Well knows" facts are usually anything but, and no doubt the original poster also though that "Proper surveillance has saved uncountable lives" was also a well known fact.

Those are pretty poor citations ( CNN or Bruce Schneier's personal blog are hardly reliable resources for criminology research). Most of it seems to be based on the statements of a single police officer. Schneier cites him as an authority when he agrees with him, but ignores him when he says things Schneier doesn't like . For example:

More training was needed for officers, [Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville] said. Often they do not want to find CCTV images "because it's hard work"

Whereas Schneier states:

The solution isn't for police to watch the cameras more diligently

It's worth noting that this officer seems to be trying to get support for increased funding for his department, so his remarks need to be taken in that context.

As I said before I don't disagree with you that CCTV is probably a waste of money, but that it has done "nothing" to decrease or help solve crimes is not what studies have found. There also seems to be a large geographical/cultural factor.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/587/1/110.short

Effects of Closed-Circuit Television on Crime

This article reports on the findings of a systematic review--incorporating meta-analytic techniques--of the available research evidence on the effects of closed-circuit television (CCTV) on crime in public space. A number of targeted and comprehensive searches of the published and unpublished literature and contacts with leading researchers produced twenty-two CCTV evaluations that met our criteria for inclusion in this review. CCTV had a significant desirable effect on crime, although the overall reduction in crime was a rather small 4 percent. All nine studies showing evidence of a desirable effect of CCTV on crime were carried out in the United Kingdom. Conversely, the other nine studies showing no evidence of any desirable effect of CCTV on crime included all five North American studies. CCTV was most effective in reducing crime in car parks. It had no effect on violent crimes but had a significant desirable effect on vehicle crimes.

Crime reduction is also not the only possible effect of CCTV:
http://eab.sagepub.com/content/41/1/60.abstract

The Eye of the Camera Effects of Security Cameras on Prosocial Behavior

This study addresses the effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior. Results from previous studies indicate that the presence of others can trigger helping behavior, arising from the need for approval of others. Extending these findings, the authors propose that security cameras can likewise trigger such approval-seeking behaviors by implying the presence of a watchful eye. Because people vary in the extent to which they strive for others' approval, it was expected that the effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior vary with participants' need for approval. To test these predictions, an experimental study was conducted with “presence of security camera” and “need for approval” as independent variables. Results showed that participants indeed offered more help in the presence of a security camera but only to the extent that this helping involved public or observable behavior. As expected, this effect was more pronounced for individuals high in need for approval. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Now of course there is a question about whether we should be trying to manipulate people in these ways, and whether it is worth it given the costs (reduction in freedom, financial, potential for abuse etc), but I don't think we can have that debate unless we at least attempt to find out what the impacts on crime are (rather than just cherry picking like Schneier does). You can make the argument that the impact on crime is irrelevant; the cost of reduced freedom is just too great. That's a fine argument, but some people seem reluctant to actually make it, instead hiding behind vague and unsubstantiated arguments about crime rates (crime statistics are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation).

Anyway, we are getting waaaaay off-topic here.