4 ms·

> Not American, but isn't criminality in the U.S. like at about lowest point in history? Sort of. We're approaching 1960s level of crime, but it was lower in t

> Not American, but isn't criminality in the U.S. like at about lowest point in history? Sort of. We're approaching 1960s level of crime, but it was lower in the early 60s and 50s. I don't know if we tracked it before then. Crime rates, including homicide rates, are about half of what they were 20 years ago, but about 20% higher than they were in the mid 50s. > Is there some actual evidence that the lack of ability to do mass surveillance is somehow making criminal investigations less effective? No. Police investigations still tend to use things called search warrants and interrogation of witnesses and suspects to acquire incriminating evidence. Mass surveillance is very expensive in order to be effective. I have family involved in law enforcement and they are able to request access to stingrays from state or federal police, but their use is fairly limited and still requires a search warrant in many cases. I don't believe it's gone to SCotUS yet, but many appellate courts have ruled that you've got to have one.

toyg 9y ago
> it was lower in the early 60s and 50s But there is reason to believe pre-1980 statistics had a huge problem of under-reporting more or less everywhere, especially in countries as big (and relatively desolate, at the time) as the US. Even just collating reliable statistics is a challenge today, let alone in the '50s. Nowadays we almost have the opposite problem, with cellphones and vague laws resulting in increased reporting of entire classes of crimes. So having a declining trend despite these development, is either a huge win or proof that statistics can be tweaked at will (as The Wire taught us, and we all know The Wire is all true... /s )
- da_chicken 9y ago
  I agree the older crime statistics are a little suspect, but it's all we really have to go on. And, yeah, the US was a much bigger and much newer nation back then. The Apache Wars and other associated wars against the native Americans didn't wrap up until 1924! Crime statistics just weren't that important. > as The Wire taught us, and we all know The Wire is all true... /s I could never get in to The Wire. The very first scene of the very first episode is a courtroom where a woman changes her testimony on the stand, and the prosecutor doesn't: a) show the woman her sworn deposition, b) request an immediate continuance (surprise testimony is one of the things that warrants one), and c) threaten and then carry out charges of perjury against the woman for refusing to testify according to her statement. Instead, the prosecutor keeps asking questions over and over, driving into the jury's mind the woman's changed testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I know something of courtroom procedure. This was just so unbelievable that it made me angry that the writers expected me to believe it. It would be like someone hacking a System/360 Model 30 from their iPhone in 10 seconds. I understand it was for dramatic purposes to lead to the other witness's murder, but it broke my suspension of disbelief so badly I had a hard time watching the rest of the episode. I don't remember if I ever watched the second episode.
  - toyg 9y ago
    Sorry to hear, but please do yourself a favour and give it a second chance! As my sarcasm indicates, way too many people think It's All Exactly Like That (which of course it isn't, as you just demonstrated), but it's a really good series that makes some very interesting points on the fabric of modern society.
e12e 9y ago
> Mass surveillance is very expensive in order to be effective. Not if done right, according to William Binney who worked on designing the systems that eventually (d)evolved to what Snowden leaked information about. That was re: (actual) national security - but the same mechanisms are at play: if you can record what you need to achieve a stated goal for 250m - why do that if you can spend N billion on a less efficient system? Compared to manual policing, automated surveillance is a really cheap way to run a police state. Now, if the goal is to minimise crime, as opposed to maximise catching criminals (which really should be a means to an end, not a goal in itself) - better welfare, psychic health services and after school activities are probably the way to go...
- da_chicken 9y ago
  > psychic health services Mental health services?
  - e12e 9y ago
    Sorry, yes.

toyg 9y ago

> it was lower in the early 60s and 50s But there is reason to believe pre-1980 statistics had a huge problem of under-reporting more or less everywhere, especially in countries as big (and relatively desolate, at the time) as the US. Even just collating reliable statistics is a challenge today, let alone in the '50s. Nowadays we almost have the opposite problem, with cellphones and vague laws resulting in increased reporting of entire classes of crimes. So having a declining trend despite these development, is either a huge win or proof that statistics can be tweaked at will (as The Wire taught us, and we all know The Wire is all true... /s )

da_chicken 9y ago
I agree the older crime statistics are a little suspect, but it's all we really have to go on. And, yeah, the US was a much bigger and much newer nation back then. The Apache Wars and other associated wars against the native Americans didn't wrap up until 1924! Crime statistics just weren't that important. > as The Wire taught us, and we all know The Wire is all true... /s I could never get in to The Wire. The very first scene of the very first episode is a courtroom where a woman changes her testimony on the stand, and the prosecutor doesn't: a) show the woman her sworn deposition, b) request an immediate continuance (surprise testimony is one of the things that warrants one), and c) threaten and then carry out charges of perjury against the woman for refusing to testify according to her statement. Instead, the prosecutor keeps asking questions over and over, driving into the jury's mind the woman's changed testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I know something of courtroom procedure. This was just so unbelievable that it made me angry that the writers expected me to believe it. It would be like someone hacking a System/360 Model 30 from their iPhone in 10 seconds. I understand it was for dramatic purposes to lead to the other witness's murder, but it broke my suspension of disbelief so badly I had a hard time watching the rest of the episode. I don't remember if I ever watched the second episode.
- toyg 9y ago
  Sorry to hear, but please do yourself a favour and give it a second chance! As my sarcasm indicates, way too many people think It's All Exactly Like That (which of course it isn't, as you just demonstrated), but it's a really good series that makes some very interesting points on the fabric of modern society.

e12e 9y ago

> Mass surveillance is very expensive in order to be effective. Not if done right, according to William Binney who worked on designing the systems that eventually (d)evolved to what Snowden leaked information about. That was re: (actual) national security - but the same mechanisms are at play: if you can record what you need to achieve a stated goal for 250m - why do that if you can spend N billion on a less efficient system? Compared to manual policing, automated surveillance is a really cheap way to run a police state. Now, if the goal is to minimise crime, as opposed to maximise catching criminals (which really should be a means to an end, not a goal in itself) - better welfare, psychic health services and after school activities are probably the way to go...

da_chicken 9y ago
> psychic health services Mental health services?
- e12e 9y ago
  Sorry, yes.