3 ms·
> So having more cops in a high-crime neighborhood is somehow a bad thing, because the presence of more police actually confirms the fact that there is more of
by tsylba 10y ago
> So having more cops in a high-crime neighborhood is somehow a bad thing, because the presence of more police actually confirms the fact that there is more of a need of police in this neighborhood?
That's the essence of the Security vs Liberty argument. Yes, on one hand it is a good thing to have more security in an area which needs it; but will you accept say, being filmed 24/7 for more security, with the tradeoff that this same data can be analysed by third parties for any reason whatsoever (ala Minority Report's shopping mall scene).
It is not an easy problem and we must decide for ourselves which tradeoffs we will accept, because it is seldom free technology with no strings attached.
- bko 10y agoWell this is specifically for high-crime neighborhoods. I would accept less privacy and more policing in high-crime neighborhoods because that reduces the incentives of crime as the perpetrator would be more likely to be caught. When you're talking about marginal benefit (crime rate from 2/100,000 -> 1/100,000), I would be less willing to give up liberties. There is some tipping point, and we can argue where that is, but I still believe in the value of old-fashioned policing to get us to an acceptable risk