5 ms·
Interesting that this appears on the front page at the same time as this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item
by morley 9y ago
Interesting that this appears on the front page at the same time as this story:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973
I don't have a particular point of view either way other than to say that context matters, and pragmatism matters, and the solution to these potential problems can't be "remove all surveillance" any more than it can be "surveil everything."
- PantaloonFlames 9y agoIt's a long game, adding surveillance. Surely more surveillance would not have prevented this senseless murder. No one knows why it happened; it seems to have occurred without any reason. We can surmise momentary insanity or a drug-induced psychotic episode. The apparent perpetrator refuses to confess, so maybe he doesn't even remember how it happened, though obviously he remembers scrubbing the car. But CCTV footage wouldn't have stopped this madness. It would have helped find her body a little more quickly. In the long term, I guess surveillance would discourage violent crime, as the idea that "they'll see us, the police will catch us" gradually becomes well accepted among people who have the potential to commit crimes. This is probably already true in London, and maybe in other closely-surveilled capital cities. But even if everyone sane shares the knowledge that "they're watching us", psychotic actors will still do psychotic things.
- walshemj 9y agoSo how come in London (a LOT of cctv) which has just had a really heavy spike in murderers and Gun crime?
- boomboomsubban 9y agoCCTV has been in London for a long time now, and violent crime is still down from it's introduction. CCTV is not the only factor relevant to a murder rate, and a "spike" in the overall lower numbers should be an expected result.