6 ms·

(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 ev

(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
    Just as a thought experiment: Why don't we put cameras in public bathrooms? It wouldn't harm anyone, and it would stop some crimes.
    - arnarbi 9y ago
      Personally I'd be ok (it turns out that everyone poops!), but I realize I'm in the minority and get your point. My point is that it depends on each culture's understanding of "freedom" and "privacy".
    - soneil 9y ago
      I think it'd be fair to say that's a textbook example of "reasonable expectation of privacy". If someone watches you walk down the street, your reaction would be somewhere on a scale between not even noticing, and thinking they're a busybody. If they joined you in a stall while you expell a few demons, it's a safe assumption you'd rather different opinion of them.
wjn0 9y ago
> It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. Yes, I understood that, but I just mean there was a 4+ hour window when that could have actually occurred it seems, and I don't know if more surveillance could have improved the precision on that. "Traffic cameras" are common on what I would refer to as "routes" - large roadways heading outside the city. I think that might've helped in this case. > 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. This is a good point. It's tough for me to understand the purpose of a CCTV camera that can't pick out a license plate on a public street - isn't that half the point!? Perhaps just a matter of poor positioning... FWIW, I'm neither for nor against additional CCTV in major cities. It's got its drawbacks, and of course it's advantages. > 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. Interesting - definitely cultural. I've noticed similar differences between the US and Canada.

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
  Just as a thought experiment: Why don't we put cameras in public bathrooms? It wouldn't harm anyone, and it would stop some crimes.
  - arnarbi 9y ago
    Personally I'd be ok (it turns out that everyone poops!), but I realize I'm in the minority and get your point. My point is that it depends on each culture's understanding of "freedom" and "privacy".
  - soneil 9y ago
    I think it'd be fair to say that's a textbook example of "reasonable expectation of privacy". If someone watches you walk down the street, your reaction would be somewhere on a scale between not even noticing, and thinking they're a busybody. If they joined you in a stall while you expell a few demons, it's a safe assumption you'd rather different opinion of them.

wjn0 9y ago

> It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. Yes, I understood that, but I just mean there was a 4+ hour window when that could have actually occurred it seems, and I don't know if more surveillance could have improved the precision on that. "Traffic cameras" are common on what I would refer to as "routes" - large roadways heading outside the city. I think that might've helped in this case. > 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. This is a good point. It's tough for me to understand the purpose of a CCTV camera that can't pick out a license plate on a public street - isn't that half the point!? Perhaps just a matter of poor positioning... FWIW, I'm neither for nor against additional CCTV in major cities. It's got its drawbacks, and of course it's advantages. > 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. Interesting - definitely cultural. I've noticed similar differences between the US and Canada.