5 ms·

It is interesting that the article states that Iceland's conclusion from this case (and probably others) is "more surveillance." They don't mention if the autop

by wjn0 9y ago

It is interesting that the article states that Iceland's conclusion from this case (and probably others) is "more surveillance." They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. Would more surveillance have prevented her death? Or is the argument that it would serve as a deterrent? It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted, who if not guilty of murder, is most likely otherwise culpable for her death. He was caught on CCTV buying the cleaning equipment for the car, for example. Surely if CCTV is to serve as a deterrent, he would not be caught doing something so... obvious?

meheleventyone 9y ago
I live in Iceland perhaps no more than 200m away from where Birna got in the car. My understanding is that people feel more CCTV would have answered the question of what happened to her sooner. People were very shocked that someone could vanish from Laugavegur (if you’ve never visited, downtown Reykjavik doesn’t have a big city vibe) and there were substantial searches conducted through the downtown area. Were it not for some civic minded people coming across crucial evidence in an unlikely spot the red car involved may not have been identified at all. In short a lot of people empathise with the pain of their loved ones vanishing and not knowing why and in this case lack of CCTV almost played a part in that.
arnarbi 9y ago
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating evidence. Without linking the red KIA to Polar Nanooq, it is possible that nothing would have come of it. The perpetrator had left the country with almost all the available evidence, and such a large search would likely not have been launched so her body might have never been discovered. It was by the skin of their teeth that the police managed to link the car in the first video to the boat. Had the first video been better (or more from the same area), they would have been able to identify the license plates right away. A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" -- but rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment.
- 13of40 9y ago
  > "we don't need it" But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
  - rando444 9y ago
    We actually might need it more than ever. Only just 5 years ago the number of visitors to Iceland was roughly the same as the population (300,000+).. these days it's in the multiple millions. The increase in tourism has caused an influx in immigration which has subsequently caused an increase in crime. Luckily not much, and it's not because "immigrants cause crime", it's just a byproduct of going from a homogeneous society to one that becomes more made up of outsiders who sometimes don't have the group's best interest at heart. At any rate, the point is that here the government is less of a direct threat, and the benefit that could be gained in cases like these is worth the piece of mind that it brings to the public knowing that these systems are used to help in the worst of situations. For the record I am very pro-privacy, but when you balance the pros and the cons here, the cameras come out on top.
  - JKCalhoun 9y ago
    To play devil's advocate, in the U.S. privacy extends, legally, to the degree to which a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". CCTV cameras on public streets (and license plate scanners for that matter) don't, for me, appear to violate that. I suspect that this level of surveillance has done a lot of public good (finding abductors for example). Are there a significant number of instances when it has done the opposite?
  - arnarbi 9y ago
    > It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy. I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.
    - 13of40 9y ago
21 9y ago
Criminals always follow the path of least resistance. Like how they steal bicycles because they know police don't have resources to bother with that. Or how the steal phones from your hand in London for the same reason. Now imagine if an AI would trace their path through thousands of CCTV cameras. It could even automatically dispatch a squad to arrest them from home. Surely that would deter many of them, since now crime would send you to jail instead of giving you a free phone.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  Why do you need an AI to do that? A log of facial recognition matches...

by wjn0 9y ago

meheleventyone 9y ago

I live in Iceland perhaps no more than 200m away from where Birna got in the car. My understanding is that people feel more CCTV would have answered the question of what happened to her sooner. People were very shocked that someone could vanish from Laugavegur (if you’ve never visited, downtown Reykjavik doesn’t have a big city vibe) and there were substantial searches conducted through the downtown area. Were it not for some civic minded people coming across crucial evidence in an unlikely spot the red car involved may not have been identified at all. In short a lot of people empathise with the pain of their loved ones vanishing and not knowing why and in this case lack of CCTV almost played a part in that.

arnarbi 9y ago

(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating evidence. Without linking the red KIA to Polar Nanooq, it is possible that nothing would have come of it. The perpetrator had left the country with almost all the available evidence, and such a large search would likely not have been launched so her body might have never been discovered. It was by the skin of their teeth that the police managed to link the car in the first video to the boat. Had the first video been better (or more from the same area), they would have been able to identify the license plates right away. A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" -- but rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment.

13of40 9y ago
> "we don't need it" But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
- rando444 9y ago
  We actually might need it more than ever. Only just 5 years ago the number of visitors to Iceland was roughly the same as the population (300,000+).. these days it's in the multiple millions. The increase in tourism has caused an influx in immigration which has subsequently caused an increase in crime. Luckily not much, and it's not because "immigrants cause crime", it's just a byproduct of going from a homogeneous society to one that becomes more made up of outsiders who sometimes don't have the group's best interest at heart. At any rate, the point is that here the government is less of a direct threat, and the benefit that could be gained in cases like these is worth the piece of mind that it brings to the public knowing that these systems are used to help in the worst of situations. For the record I am very pro-privacy, but when you balance the pros and the cons here, the cameras come out on top.
- JKCalhoun 9y ago
  To play devil's advocate, in the U.S. privacy extends, legally, to the degree to which a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". CCTV cameras on public streets (and license plate scanners for that matter) don't, for me, appear to violate that. I suspect that this level of surveillance has done a lot of public good (finding abductors for example). Are there a significant number of instances when it has done the opposite?
- arnarbi 9y ago
  > It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy. I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.
  - 13of40 9y ago

21 9y ago

Criminals always follow the path of least resistance. Like how they steal bicycles because they know police don't have resources to bother with that. Or how the steal phones from your hand in London for the same reason. Now imagine if an AI would trace their path through thousands of CCTV cameras. It could even automatically dispatch a squad to arrest them from home. Surely that would deter many of them, since now crime would send you to jail instead of giving you a free phone.

tomc1985 9y ago
Why do you need an AI to do that? A log of facial recognition matches...