They are for identifying dissidents to round up in the future, not for reducing the incidence rate of petty crime.
Governments and AI billionaires are all talking about some utopian future where we are all free to do what we want and have a universal basic income to support us. But the deployment of a draconian surveillance network, militarised police, domestic concentration camps and 'left wing terrorist' rhetoric is not painting a picture of a future utopia.
I think that purpose statement implies good intentions - we all know measurement stats become the thing that is gamed to make one's organization look good and this is well documented for American law enforcement. Unless absolutely forced to, they simply do not measure things they do not want to report, i.e. prosecutors do not have to document racial backgrounds of accused to prevent racial discrimination from being proved in court (The New Jim Crow), crimes by law enforcement are underreported - especially fatal use of force - justified because "cop scared for his life" (Copoganda), tons of anecdotal evidence many cops will not investigate petty theft even when owners track down thief. The Wire kind of made fun of this "juking the stats" more than ten years ago (co-written by formal journalist David Simon).
I think the case against Flock isn't about its efficacy, it's simply about civil rights.
Similar to how gun laws aren't about the safety of guns, I think Flock cameras, and other surveillance technologies simply encroach on individual freedoms.
A citizen should be reasonably free from government surveillance.
2019 had 99 murders. This has absolutely nothing to do with Flock, and the notion is perverse nonsense.
Cameras do not prevent crime. This has been eminently shown endlessly. Now ideally they help then find the culprits, but in practice this just isn't happening.
What is this based on? They do seem to prevent crime [1]. To my naive perspective, this seems ludicrously obvious, since there are just countless examples of thieves looking around for cameras, and then noping out once one is seen, that can be found on YouTube. As a youth, who enjoyed urban exploration with my friends (aka trespassing) it definitely deterred our group from entering a properties. It doesn't prevent certain crimes, but to say it doesn't prevent any is a perspective that I can't comprehend.
A camera does not prevent crime. It never has, anywhere on the planet. Monitoring does prevent crime, and people who look out for cameras aren't worried about the camera, they're worried about active monitoring. They're worried that the police will be there moments later. When you planned on breaking into a dozen cars to rummage through them in some vacant lot, the calculus is a lot different when there is a guy watching you.
Only everyone knows most of these cameras aren't monitored. The effect of the monitoring concern has dissolved.
And it's especially ridiculous to claim that cameras stop gang violence, which comes in ebbs and flows. Which was the "look it stopped all the murders!" There are various other absurd takes throughout this discussion, and HNers should realize that Flock has a massive PR campaign underway, and an enormous number of astroturfers spreading hilariously stupid stories about the gang members intimidated by...a camera.
You pulled a "trust me bro", while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim. Related, thieves can't see where the wires go, which is why even dummy cameras are proven to be effective, and used widely in the industry.
>No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim
LOL, one link observed that crimes dropped from 11...to 7. And again, these are almost certainly monitored cameras, which I *specifically* addressed, and the paper is hilariously worthless noise. I would expect that cameras in a subway system have a security guy sitting in a booth with an array of TVs, which is legitimately concerning to petty criminals. A bunch of worthless recording cameras are not.
>I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance
A tiny minority of insurers offer discounts in the 2% range if you install unmonitored cameras. This discount is a pat on the head discount, and you clearly know nothing about insurance if you really think that betrays a tangible risk reduction.
Christ, insurers don't even care if you have an alarm system unless you have an active monitoring contract. Because again, while the simple thing this is a big deterrent, it actually isn't.
Which insurance agencies give discounts for unmonitored cameras? Can you cite it? I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount, but overwhelmingly they only give discounts for active monitored cameras. For precisely the reason I mentioned above: Having an SD card showing that "yup, someone stole the car" is useless.
Seems a bit premature to attribute that solely (or even primarily) to Flock.
It also begs the question of if there is a deterrent effect from cameras to commit homicide, couldn't that deterrent be achieved with a far less controversial technology?
I would also assume surveillance would increase crime that's reported, at least a little bit, since it would mean the police would be less likely to say what anyone who has lived in a higher crime area is familiar with hearing: "There's nothing we can do about it".
From wiki.. "The number of murders in Atlanta was 80 in 2009, 92 in 2010, 88 in 2011, 85 in 2012, 82 in 2013, 93 in 2014, 95 in 2015, and 111 in 2016."
[0]
In fact, 2016 is also a blip and then it goes back down again until 2019, and 2022 was the high point. It is almost as if the incidence of homicides is entirely unrelated to flock.
Sort of related. Across the street from my cousin's house in Portland, OR, a car ran over the curb and into landscape features that knocked off the car's bumper and license plate. The perpetrator then backed up and drove away. My cousin's doorbell camera caught it all. Police are not interested, saying no one can prove who was driving.
Who needs a license plate reader when you can get a license plate?
That seems like a good idea to me. No matter what the owner says, I would want to know about the incident if I were providing liability insurance on the vehicle.
I spent half my day today in Atlanta's inner loop... soooo many Nissans just don't even have license plates, anymore (and other cars, too; but all other OEMs summed == Nissans).
It makes me want to purchase a beat-up silver Nissan (without plates also) and then I can blend in through obscurity?
----
My own ATL adventure today involved zero license plate scans, but obviously the machines are doing way more than just LPR (I have no illusions that my activities aren't still traced, even without a legible tag).
Conspiracy theory: Cops are worried about essentially being replaced by Flock cameras (if Flock cameras do, in fact, reduce crime rates, it's only a matter of time before the city council starts looking for ways to reduce the budget, and the police is often the biggest spend for cities), so they intentionally report slightly inflated crime rate data to remind the public: "See? Y'all still need us!"
That loosely resembles research about economic impact of adopting PC. Which was not as great as could be imagined. Increased competition sets prices lower, increased data flows are not compatible with manual labour. Like in running faster in "Through the looking glass"
34 comments
[ 0.46 ms ] story [ 46.6 ms ] threadGovernments and AI billionaires are all talking about some utopian future where we are all free to do what we want and have a universal basic income to support us. But the deployment of a draconian surveillance network, militarised police, domestic concentration camps and 'left wing terrorist' rhetoric is not painting a picture of a future utopia.
2021 homicides: 161
2025 homicides: 96
The purpose of enforcement is to reduce the amount of crime not to maximize the percentage of prosecuted crime.
https://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/Components/News/News/13687/67...
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/sharp-drop-in-atl...
Prove to me it wasn't my hamburger eating.
Similar to how gun laws aren't about the safety of guns, I think Flock cameras, and other surveillance technologies simply encroach on individual freedoms.
A citizen should be reasonably free from government surveillance.
...but it can. Unfortunately something like this with a huge number of independent variables, it's hard to know.
Cameras do not prevent crime. This has been eminently shown endlessly. Now ideally they help then find the culprits, but in practice this just isn't happening.
What is this based on? They do seem to prevent crime [1]. To my naive perspective, this seems ludicrously obvious, since there are just countless examples of thieves looking around for cameras, and then noping out once one is seen, that can be found on YouTube. As a youth, who enjoyed urban exploration with my friends (aka trespassing) it definitely deterred our group from entering a properties. It doesn't prevent certain crimes, but to say it doesn't prevent any is a perspective that I can't comprehend.
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/cctv-surveillance-c...
Only everyone knows most of these cameras aren't monitored. The effect of the monitoring concern has dissolved.
And it's especially ridiculous to claim that cameras stop gang violence, which comes in ebbs and flows. Which was the "look it stopped all the murders!" There are various other absurd takes throughout this discussion, and HNers should realize that Flock has a massive PR campaign underway, and an enormous number of astroturfers spreading hilariously stupid stories about the gang members intimidated by...a camera.
You pulled a "trust me bro", while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim. Related, thieves can't see where the wires go, which is why even dummy cameras are proven to be effective, and used widely in the industry.
Cheers!
LOL, one link observed that crimes dropped from 11...to 7. And again, these are almost certainly monitored cameras, which I *specifically* addressed, and the paper is hilariously worthless noise. I would expect that cameras in a subway system have a security guy sitting in a booth with an array of TVs, which is legitimately concerning to petty criminals. A bunch of worthless recording cameras are not.
>I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance
A tiny minority of insurers offer discounts in the 2% range if you install unmonitored cameras. This discount is a pat on the head discount, and you clearly know nothing about insurance if you really think that betrays a tangible risk reduction.
Christ, insurers don't even care if you have an alarm system unless you have an active monitoring contract. Because again, while the simple thing this is a big deterrent, it actually isn't.
"and the insurance agencies that give discounts"
Which insurance agencies give discounts for unmonitored cameras? Can you cite it? I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount, but overwhelmingly they only give discounts for active monitored cameras. For precisely the reason I mentioned above: Having an SD card showing that "yup, someone stole the car" is useless.
It also begs the question of if there is a deterrent effect from cameras to commit homicide, couldn't that deterrent be achieved with a far less controversial technology?
From wiki.. "The number of murders in Atlanta was 80 in 2009, 92 in 2010, 88 in 2011, 85 in 2012, 82 in 2013, 93 in 2014, 95 in 2015, and 111 in 2016." [0]
In fact, 2016 is also a blip and then it goes back down again until 2019, and 2022 was the high point. It is almost as if the incidence of homicides is entirely unrelated to flock.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Atlanta
How about asking the owner?
I thought these were deployed so that Cops could keep track of the women they want to beat.
It makes me want to purchase a beat-up silver Nissan (without plates also) and then I can blend in through obscurity?
----
My own ATL adventure today involved zero license plate scans, but obviously the machines are doing way more than just LPR (I have no illusions that my activities aren't still traced, even without a legible tag).