Isn’t that kind of how it works? Safety is a “no broken windows” problem. People who commit crimes need to be caught and punished at a very high rate. This basically requires surveillance, no?
Surveillance doesn’t guarantee safety. But what is the counter proposal on how to turn a large, unsafe location into a safe one?
I expect downvotes for this. But seriously. What do you propose? Is surveillance not exactly how countries like the UK and Singapore provide safety? Can anyone cite an example of a “safety turnaround” not based on surveillance?
Believe you me I wish that weren’t the case! Someone show me the alternative, please!
The problem with the current approach is that it collects data and monitors the movement of everyone present, include innocent people. The data is centrally gathered and used for privacy violating purposes.
A better option would be to decentralize the monitoring and enforcement. Autonomous robots with cameras and guns could be installed everywhere - - they'd process all video locally, by themselves, and could take action right away. This way privacy is not violated.
You can't break windows if there are no windows to break. It sounds like a joke but actually environment does affect crime rate and types of crime. Here's one such document that talks about it: https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol2num1/notes....
It likely depends upon the type of crime you are trying to prevent. If you are trying to prevent crimes where the perpetrator assumes there will be no witnesses, then I can see how surveilance could[1] be effective. If you are talking about a mass shooting, a crime where the perpetrator must assume there will be witness and they will be caught (short of suicide, which seems to be common in these scenarios, then it is hard to see how surveilance will be effective.
[1] I say could because it probably involves the mental state of the person commiting the crime.
It is important to measure any response to a tragic event against the metric of “would this remediation, if it had been in place before the event, prevented it or improved the outcome?”
Most responses to gun violence in the US fail this test.
Never let a good tragedy go to waste right? Political reactions never are about solving the problem, they're about exploiting tragedy to push through something one's camp already wanted.
Yes, an obvious question that leagues of mainstream "journalists" consistently fail to ask. But not only is mass shooting porn good for rating, and nudging the next mass shooter into position but it serves The State as well.
It's not a good when the self-proclaimed free press misses softball questions that would challenge the narrative of The State. But it's hard to point at something that isn't there even when that void is the exact problem you wish to highlight.
I am a local, I both attended and worked at Michigan State. I believe that MSU needs to provide a value to students and employees with all this surveillance.
At Oakland University near Detroit they were named the second safest campus in America. Like MSU they have lots of cameras. But a student can launch an app and say I am walking from the library to my dorm please follow me. That students path will be monitored until they safely arrive. Students rave about the system.
I wonder what other costly, dangerous and useless stuff one can distribute, so kids and students can be endangered even more, so this would warrant more surveillance and policing?
30 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 79.0 ms ] threadGeorge Orwell, 1984
Surveillance doesn’t guarantee safety. But what is the counter proposal on how to turn a large, unsafe location into a safe one?
I expect downvotes for this. But seriously. What do you propose? Is surveillance not exactly how countries like the UK and Singapore provide safety? Can anyone cite an example of a “safety turnaround” not based on surveillance?
Believe you me I wish that weren’t the case! Someone show me the alternative, please!
A better option would be to decentralize the monitoring and enforcement. Autonomous robots with cameras and guns could be installed everywhere - - they'd process all video locally, by themselves, and could take action right away. This way privacy is not violated.
Yikes! That’s gonna violate something alright.
At this point I'm not even sure if you're sarcastic. Or are you an agent of the upcoming robot uprising? Who knows!
Soon on 0days market price list:
- Root access at google.com: $200.000
- Data access to any Ring video doorbell cameras: $150.000
- Full control of gun equipped robots at schools: $50.000
Prices pulled out of you know where, but you get the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzlt7IbTp6M
[1] - https://youtu.be/5l4IrCBLzTI?&t=8
No offense but when were you born? Surveillance technology is relatively modern. What do you think the world look liked 50 years ago? 100?
[1] I say could because it probably involves the mental state of the person commiting the crime.
Most responses to gun violence in the US fail this test.
It's not a good when the self-proclaimed free press misses softball questions that would challenge the narrative of The State. But it's hard to point at something that isn't there even when that void is the exact problem you wish to highlight.
"University profits by selling behavioural data and close contact list of students to advertisers"
"University secretly assigns students AI social credit score"
"Students face crushing AI generated bills for minor infractions and behavior like loitering, poor and minority students most affected."
At Oakland University near Detroit they were named the second safest campus in America. Like MSU they have lots of cameras. But a student can launch an app and say I am walking from the library to my dorm please follow me. That students path will be monitored until they safely arrive. Students rave about the system.
Besides guns, alcohol and amphetamines?