7 ms·

There's no convincing research that establishes causality on such complex sociological matters, since you can't create clean experiments, and observations are n

by _cs2017_ 8y ago

There's no convincing research that establishes causality on such complex sociological matters, since you can't create clean experiments, and observations are not useful since there are too many confounding factors. However, you don't really need research on this, it's obvious that surveillance offers meaningful safety benefits. I think the problem some people have with surveillance is that its costs may outweigh its benefits. For example surveillance can be used to shift political system in the authoritarian direction, by suppressing political opposition. It can be used to sustain inequality since it provides those with money or power a powerful leverage to entrench their positions. It can be used by corrupt officials and hackers to commit serious crimes (partly offsetting its crime reduction benefits). Finally, even if surveillance isn't abused, it can be uncomfortable to some people who just don't like being watched.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> partly offsetting its crime reduction benefits No, potentially outweighing them. There is no reason to think surveillance cannot enable more crime than it solves, and the more surveillance you have the more likely that gets.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  Possibly. Although if I have to guess, the new crimes it enables are less destructive than the ones it catches. As an example, a mugger has a risk of killing or seriously injuring the person. On the other hand, someone who steals surveillance data for blackmail purposes will not cause nearly as much harm.
Vinnl 8y ago
> it's obvious that surveillance offers meaningful safety benefits. Is it, though? As far as I know, most crime is of the "spur of the moment" type, decided on the stop, without much regard for the consequences. Thus, I'd expect more surveillance to be able to increase the odds of getting caught, but to not actually reduce the amount of crime. I'd also be ware for increased surveillance to hamper the ability to correct "wrong" laws.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  Oh you're right, I didn't think about it. I take it back, it's not that obvious that it offers meaningful safety benefits. Still, I suppose if the probability of being caught goes from 1% to over 50%, it might be enough to scare off even the spur of the moment criminals. Also, a decent fraction of crimes are at least somewhat planned or even repeated, and those should be affected by the chance of being caught. On the other hand, there are also more things I didn't think about. Suppose surveillance actually catches all car thieves. Will most of them go get a job? Or will they just switch to crimes that are harder to detect with surveillance? My guess is that most criminals will either stop committing crimes or spend most of their life in jail. But I may underestimate the creativity and capability of criminals.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> partly offsetting its crime reduction benefits No, potentially outweighing them. There is no reason to think surveillance cannot enable more crime than it solves, and the more surveillance you have the more likely that gets.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
Possibly. Although if I have to guess, the new crimes it enables are less destructive than the ones it catches. As an example, a mugger has a risk of killing or seriously injuring the person. On the other hand, someone who steals surveillance data for blackmail purposes will not cause nearly as much harm.

Vinnl 8y ago

> it's obvious that surveillance offers meaningful safety benefits. Is it, though? As far as I know, most crime is of the "spur of the moment" type, decided on the stop, without much regard for the consequences. Thus, I'd expect more surveillance to be able to increase the odds of getting caught, but to not actually reduce the amount of crime. I'd also be ware for increased surveillance to hamper the ability to correct "wrong" laws.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
Oh you're right, I didn't think about it. I take it back, it's not that obvious that it offers meaningful safety benefits. Still, I suppose if the probability of being caught goes from 1% to over 50%, it might be enough to scare off even the spur of the moment criminals. Also, a decent fraction of crimes are at least somewhat planned or even repeated, and those should be affected by the chance of being caught. On the other hand, there are also more things I didn't think about. Suppose surveillance actually catches all car thieves. Will most of them go get a job? Or will they just switch to crimes that are harder to detect with surveillance? My guess is that most criminals will either stop committing crimes or spend most of their life in jail. But I may underestimate the creativity and capability of criminals.