3 ms·

You know, part of me just wants to mirror that, and ask "what is your actual question?", but okay. Just in the sentence I quoted, "complicated" crimes is just

by musage 9y ago

You know, part of me just wants to mirror that, and ask "what is your actual question?", but okay. Just in the sentence I quoted, "complicated" crimes is just padding, but of course, you can't sell "getting more complex" with the argument of "crime still exists". Then there's "unexpected" natural disasters, which is padding, too. Of course, natural disasters aren't social challenges. "This situation" -- of which there is nothing left other than "crime exists" -- always existed, and what is a "global concern"? People all over the world have been concerned with their personal safety for longer than history exists, so what changed? Nothing changed, and if I had to guess, based on what we know about corporations and governments monitoring people who care about the environment in the least I'd say they want to peddle total control to prevent uprisings that will come when the natural disasters (we can predict to get worse, since we keep destroying our environment) get out of hand. But that's just a bonus, without that it's just marketing gibberish, and that I needed to point any of this out further eroded my faith in humanity.

anon151516888 9y ago
>"Nothing changed" I disagree. The most important thing that has changed and is applicable here is that technology makes it absolutely feasible to prevent "crime exists". At least the really bad ones. The only things preventing it are: big brother scare mongering, privacy "concerns" and funding. E.g. you could near-eliminate car accidents due to drunk driving with a tech solution. Same goes for gang violence, domestic abuse and bathroom rapes. Just stick a camera in every stall, street corner and household room. Oh and send police if the view gets obstructed or the camera damaged. A while of that and people getting caught, and they'll quickly learn to not do it. Problem solved.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  I suppose this is obvious, but evidently not to everyone: There is no example of what you describe. In fact there are counterexamples of putting cameras everywhere and still having crime. Places where there is little crime don't have, and don't need cameras everywhere.
  - fvdessen 9y ago
    Singapour has put cameras everywhere and has a very low crime rate as a consequence. While I don't want to live in such a society the model certainly seems to work.
    - pavel_lishin 9y ago
      I'm not convinced that Singapore's cameras are the magic ingredient preventing all crime.
- musage 9y ago
  Oh, so I'm scare mongering about big brother, but your're not scare mongering about crime? Why do you put privacy "concerns" in quotes, why not do that with "concerns" about crime? And how is total surveillance in itself not a violation? You might say "but that's not a crime", well, I could easily solve the rape and murder problem that way, too, just make them legal. People have been warning about the abuses of technology in these directions for like 100 years now. You might say, about a noose tightening around our collective neck. They're not scare mongering, they pay attention. Zuse, Weizenbaum, Berners-Lee, countless people you couldn't even tie the shoelaces of: it's not that they don't understand something you understand, it's the other way around.
- stordoff 9y ago
  > Just stick a camera in every stall, street corner and household room. At the same time paving the way to crush dissent (and in the more extreme case independent thought altogether) against the government, and providing perfect material for the blackmail of future politicians etc. (I'm sure _everyone_ has done/said things, even if perfectly legal/normal, in the privacy of their own home they'd rather not be made public). And that's not even considering the case where a third-party gains access and uses it for economic/industrial espionage, blackmail, etc.
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Hm, so what about all the places with a plethora of cameras (convenience stores, for example) that still get robbed?
  - ggreer 9y ago
    You have the causality backwards. Places with a high risk of robbery tend to install security measures such as cameras. This doesn't eliminate robberies, but it does reduce them.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  This is too blatantly obvious to be a Modest Proposal piece of devil's advocacy.

by musage 9y ago

anon151516888 9y ago

>"Nothing changed" I disagree. The most important thing that has changed and is applicable here is that technology makes it absolutely feasible to prevent "crime exists". At least the really bad ones. The only things preventing it are: big brother scare mongering, privacy "concerns" and funding. E.g. you could near-eliminate car accidents due to drunk driving with a tech solution. Same goes for gang violence, domestic abuse and bathroom rapes. Just stick a camera in every stall, street corner and household room. Oh and send police if the view gets obstructed or the camera damaged. A while of that and people getting caught, and they'll quickly learn to not do it. Problem solved.

Zigurd 9y ago
I suppose this is obvious, but evidently not to everyone: There is no example of what you describe. In fact there are counterexamples of putting cameras everywhere and still having crime. Places where there is little crime don't have, and don't need cameras everywhere.
- fvdessen 9y ago
  Singapour has put cameras everywhere and has a very low crime rate as a consequence. While I don't want to live in such a society the model certainly seems to work.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    I'm not convinced that Singapore's cameras are the magic ingredient preventing all crime.
musage 9y ago
Oh, so I'm scare mongering about big brother, but your're not scare mongering about crime? Why do you put privacy "concerns" in quotes, why not do that with "concerns" about crime? And how is total surveillance in itself not a violation? You might say "but that's not a crime", well, I could easily solve the rape and murder problem that way, too, just make them legal. People have been warning about the abuses of technology in these directions for like 100 years now. You might say, about a noose tightening around our collective neck. They're not scare mongering, they pay attention. Zuse, Weizenbaum, Berners-Lee, countless people you couldn't even tie the shoelaces of: it's not that they don't understand something you understand, it's the other way around.
stordoff 9y ago
> Just stick a camera in every stall, street corner and household room. At the same time paving the way to crush dissent (and in the more extreme case independent thought altogether) against the government, and providing perfect material for the blackmail of future politicians etc. (I'm sure _everyone_ has done/said things, even if perfectly legal/normal, in the privacy of their own home they'd rather not be made public). And that's not even considering the case where a third-party gains access and uses it for economic/industrial espionage, blackmail, etc.
0xfeba 9y ago
Hm, so what about all the places with a plethora of cameras (convenience stores, for example) that still get robbed?
- ggreer 9y ago
  You have the causality backwards. Places with a high risk of robbery tend to install security measures such as cameras. This doesn't eliminate robberies, but it does reduce them.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
This is too blatantly obvious to be a Modest Proposal piece of devil's advocacy.