5 ms·
The principle here - that good community policing has a strong preventative, social aspect - is nothing new. It has long been expected that good community polic
by EliRivers 7y ago
The principle here - that good community policing has a strong preventative, social aspect - is nothing new. It has long been expected that good community police officers know people in their area who might be at risk of going down a criminal path and use their judgement to intervene appropriately.
So is the objection (of some) that this principle is wrong, or is the objection that this aspect of what is generally considered good policing shouldn't be systematised and recorded?
- lukevdp 7y agoThe objection here is “because data”
- wongarsu 7y agoOn the small scale it is good policing. But on the large scale it is also disturbingly similar to what East Germany (and other socialist/Stalinist states) did: you were constantly monitored, and the police who genuinely were your friend might visit individuals at risk (of being uncommunist) and help them back on the right path. Something is systematisied, but it's not entirely clear what. And even if it's good now that doesn't stop it from being corrupted by someone in power later.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoHalfway down a person actually knowledgable about the system raises the legitimate concern that there are many non-consensual interventions, which is bad because they work way worse than the consensual ones. A hypothesis could be that the predictions of an impressive sounding system means people are less concerned about getting consent. This hypothesis is completely absent from the text, and instead it is just the textual equivalent of a video with menacing music aling pictures of the text "Government" and clips of police brutality. Honestly I wonder if the author of the piece even accept that the government keeps a record of who has citizenship.