10 ms·

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.

draw_down 8y ago
You’re right, it’s a real shame they didn’t do that.
remarkEon 8y ago
I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there often for work) that otherwise well meaning people entertain mass surveillance as a solution it might be too late.
- admiralEyebrows 8y ago
  Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. "Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones. The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.
    - admiralEyebrows 8y ago
      Fix in the context of perfect facial recognition surveillance means being able to locate and arrest all people that commit a crime. People who are not driven to crime because they can afford a financially comfortable and privileged lifestyle will not feel the effects of poverty and homelessness in this scenario. It's like putting a band aid on a festering wound. On the other hand, if we are not able to locate and arrest whoever defecated on the sidewalk, maybe we'll resort to building more toilets. edit: I have faith that San Francisco is progressive enough to not allow widespread harsh and cruel punishment for the less fortunate based on group association.
      - warning26 8y ago
        I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope. Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.
        wahern 8y ago
        The ACLU, psychiatrists, and other reformers are more culpable than Reagan. Deinstitutionalization started long before 1980. See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html Some amount of reform was needed, but the deinstitutionalization that occurred was too extreme, too rapid, and lacked adequate backstops. Politicians were just doing what they were told by lawyers and psychiatrists, and they were eager to comply because it meant huge cuts in spending.
        baroffoos 8y ago
        So you are saying anyone who can't afford the insane price of having a house with a toilet in SF is mentally ill?
        8y ago
zavi 8y ago
Somebody once broke into my car in the East Cut and stole a bottle of water.
standardUser 8y ago
I still live here. Yes, we need a severe and sustained crackdown to change the dynamics in this city. But some things are harder to undo than others, and major investments like facial recognition would live on indefinitely even if/when crime declined. Having said that, the San Francisco government has demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are incapable of carrying out even basic functions, let alone implementing a brand new, cutting edge facial recognition system. So a law like this is pointless to begin with.
- shard972 8y ago
  Are you saying that wealthiest state in America, the one that also houses the largest tech companies in the world, doesn't have the competence to buy facial recognition software from amazon?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    They have the competence to spend a lot of money on things but not so much competence to do something useful with the stuff they bought.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Eh, it’s a future-proofing measure in case that some hyper-competent municipal regime comes to power that not only makes MUNI run on time, but also more sinister schemes.
code_beers 8y ago
Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Its a much better idea to fix the fact that so many people are in such a shitty situation that they are willing to steal a worthless radio.
  - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
    > a worthless radio In 1999, I sold the stock radio from my 2000 Dodge Neon on eBay for $40!
    - OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
      A time traveling radio does seem pretty novel, to be fair.
      - shrikant 8y ago
        Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken!
        PopeDotNinja 8y ago
        > Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken! This is correct :) I bought the 2000 model in October or November of '99.
  - AckSyn 8y ago
    It's a much better idea for people to have instilled into them decent morals and standards, than to hand them what they want as a justification for their thievery.
dgzl 8y ago
You should try tinting your windows.
- olliej 8y ago
  I think that’s illegal in California. But also, that would mean you could assume in a row of cars, the ones with tinted windows were most worth breaking into (which would also defeat the traditional “keep expensive things out of sight” mechanism).
  - dgzl 8y ago
    I imagine it's only legal up until a certain visibility is crossed. Usually tint is measured as VLT (visible light transfer), and the lower the percentage the more dark the tint. Most states allow tint down to 30/35% VLT, which is alright but nothing special. My current car had really dark tint (maybe 5-15% VLT) when I bought it, and didn't really notice because I was interested in the vehicle. After I bought it, I realized that the tint isn't even legal. However, I've had the car for several years now and haven't been pulled over for it, and also haven't been broken into. Truthfully, I think tint is a detractor, because the purp can't see much, so they don't chance a B&E for nothing. I've become a fan of dark tint and I'm planning on putting it on all my vehicles.
tokyodude 8y ago
walking down streets in SF seeing the piles of broken glass every few car spaces showing someone broke into a bunch of cars recently was really eye opening how bad it is. Seems quickly solvable with a few honeypot cars. AFAIK isn't not entrapment if you don't ask them to do it. I imagine it's a relatively small number of people doing it. A month or two of honeypot cars would clear up that issue
TeMPOraL 8y ago
As others mention, facial recognition won't help in this case (because masks). I'm partial to sentry guns, though.

draw_down 8y ago

You’re right, it’s a real shame they didn’t do that.

remarkEon 8y ago

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there often for work) that otherwise well meaning people entertain mass surveillance as a solution it might be too late.

admiralEyebrows 8y ago
Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. "Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones. The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.
  - admiralEyebrows 8y ago
    Fix in the context of perfect facial recognition surveillance means being able to locate and arrest all people that commit a crime. People who are not driven to crime because they can afford a financially comfortable and privileged lifestyle will not feel the effects of poverty and homelessness in this scenario. It's like putting a band aid on a festering wound. On the other hand, if we are not able to locate and arrest whoever defecated on the sidewalk, maybe we'll resort to building more toilets. edit: I have faith that San Francisco is progressive enough to not allow widespread harsh and cruel punishment for the less fortunate based on group association.
    - warning26 8y ago
      I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope. Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.
      - wahern 8y ago
        The ACLU, psychiatrists, and other reformers are more culpable than Reagan. Deinstitutionalization started long before 1980. See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html Some amount of reform was needed, but the deinstitutionalization that occurred was too extreme, too rapid, and lacked adequate backstops. Politicians were just doing what they were told by lawyers and psychiatrists, and they were eager to comply because it meant huge cuts in spending.
      - baroffoos 8y ago
        So you are saying anyone who can't afford the insane price of having a house with a toilet in SF is mentally ill?
        8y ago

zavi 8y ago

Somebody once broke into my car in the East Cut and stole a bottle of water.

standardUser 8y ago

I still live here. Yes, we need a severe and sustained crackdown to change the dynamics in this city. But some things are harder to undo than others, and major investments like facial recognition would live on indefinitely even if/when crime declined. Having said that, the San Francisco government has demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are incapable of carrying out even basic functions, let alone implementing a brand new, cutting edge facial recognition system. So a law like this is pointless to begin with.

shard972 8y ago
Are you saying that wealthiest state in America, the one that also houses the largest tech companies in the world, doesn't have the competence to buy facial recognition software from amazon?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  They have the competence to spend a lot of money on things but not so much competence to do something useful with the stuff they bought.
Apocryphon 8y ago
Eh, it’s a future-proofing measure in case that some hyper-competent municipal regime comes to power that not only makes MUNI run on time, but also more sinister schemes.

code_beers 8y ago

Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.

baroffoos 8y ago
Its a much better idea to fix the fact that so many people are in such a shitty situation that they are willing to steal a worthless radio.
- PopeDotNinja 8y ago
  > a worthless radio In 1999, I sold the stock radio from my 2000 Dodge Neon on eBay for $40!
  - OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
    A time traveling radio does seem pretty novel, to be fair.
    - shrikant 8y ago
      Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken!
      - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
        > Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken! This is correct :) I bought the 2000 model in October or November of '99.
- AckSyn 8y ago
  It's a much better idea for people to have instilled into them decent morals and standards, than to hand them what they want as a justification for their thievery.

dgzl 8y ago

You should try tinting your windows.

olliej 8y ago
I think that’s illegal in California. But also, that would mean you could assume in a row of cars, the ones with tinted windows were most worth breaking into (which would also defeat the traditional “keep expensive things out of sight” mechanism).
- dgzl 8y ago
  I imagine it's only legal up until a certain visibility is crossed. Usually tint is measured as VLT (visible light transfer), and the lower the percentage the more dark the tint. Most states allow tint down to 30/35% VLT, which is alright but nothing special. My current car had really dark tint (maybe 5-15% VLT) when I bought it, and didn't really notice because I was interested in the vehicle. After I bought it, I realized that the tint isn't even legal. However, I've had the car for several years now and haven't been pulled over for it, and also haven't been broken into. Truthfully, I think tint is a detractor, because the purp can't see much, so they don't chance a B&E for nothing. I've become a fan of dark tint and I'm planning on putting it on all my vehicles.

tokyodude 8y ago

walking down streets in SF seeing the piles of broken glass every few car spaces showing someone broke into a bunch of cars recently was really eye opening how bad it is. Seems quickly solvable with a few honeypot cars. AFAIK isn't not entrapment if you don't ask them to do it. I imagine it's a relatively small number of people doing it. A month or two of honeypot cars would clear up that issue

TeMPOraL 8y ago

As others mention, facial recognition won't help in this case (because masks). I'm partial to sentry guns, though.