> the reduction in crime is not solely due to Flock, but is has definitely helped.
what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
People tend to behave if they know they are being watched.
Yeah it's not going to stop crime 100%, but I bet you it will (and it has) help reduce crime by double digit percentages.
Look at places where there are CCTV cameras all over, there is very little crime there compared to the United States. I won't use China as an example because then you are going to attack me for saying it's an authoritarian state. In that case I will use democratic examples: Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.
only if the cameras exist but the perpetrators don't know that they exist. If they know they are being watched on camera it doesn't take a genius to realize you just need to switch cars out of sight. And that is assuming they didn't do that already anyways.
Of course they do some good. You could improve things even further by implementing a system like Judge Dredd, and we'd save a ton of money as well.
This is the problem with limits on law enforcement. There are tradeoffs, and people really don't like tradeoffs. Many people prefer to just assume that law enforcement will use their powers for good, rather than have to think about whether any given change will do more harm than good due to enabling bad law enforcement.
Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety.
The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent.
Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.
There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission.
> No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime.
No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)
Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.
I'm pretty sure that if you need ubiquitous surveillance to ensure that your citizens don't commit crimes, you don't have a high-trust society, by definition.
Surveillance and a high trust society are diametrically opposed concepts. You don’t need a high trust society if you have total surveillance and vice versa.
> the reduction in crime is not solely due to Flock, but is has definitely helped.
what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
People tend to behave if they know they are being watched. Yeah it's not going to stop crime 100%, but I bet you it will (and it has) help reduce crime by double digit percentages.
Look at places where there are CCTV cameras all over, there is very little crime there compared to the United States. I won't use China as an example because then you are going to attack me for saying it's an authoritarian state. In that case I will use democratic examples: Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.
> People tend to behave if they know they are being watched
At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus...
Lets take the current example of the famous kidnapping of the TV anchor's mother in AZ for example.
If Arizona was blanketed in CCTVs, do you think this kidnapping would have happened?
And if it still did happen, I'm 100% sure the suspects would have been caught by now (11th+ day since the disappearance now).
only if the cameras exist but the perpetrators don't know that they exist. If they know they are being watched on camera it doesn't take a genius to realize you just need to switch cars out of sight. And that is assuming they didn't do that already anyways.
Of course they do some good. You could improve things even further by implementing a system like Judge Dredd, and we'd save a ton of money as well.
This is the problem with limits on law enforcement. There are tradeoffs, and people really don't like tradeoffs. Many people prefer to just assume that law enforcement will use their powers for good, rather than have to think about whether any given change will do more harm than good due to enabling bad law enforcement.
That has always been the question. Are you willing to be constantly surveilled for marginally more security?
Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety.
The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent.
Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.
There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission.
> No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime.
No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)
South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space.
EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.
Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.
If it leads to a high-trust society, yes. (e.g., see Singapore)
I'm pretty sure that if you need ubiquitous surveillance to ensure that your citizens don't commit crimes, you don't have a high-trust society, by definition.
Surveillance and a high trust society are diametrically opposed concepts. You don’t need a high trust society if you have total surveillance and vice versa.