4 ms·

Atlanta is the most surveilled city in the US. The local news had this on TV last week. They walked around and asked a bunch of random people what they thought.

by wil421 7y ago

Atlanta is the most surveilled city in the US. The local news had this on TV last week. They walked around and asked a bunch of random people what they thought. Every single person said they were fine with surveillance if it made things safer.

reaperducer 7y ago
Marketing victims. We've been told for decades that "security" cameras make us safer. They don't. A guard might. But all a camera can do is provide evidence after the fact. By then you're already dead or robbed or worse.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  Crimes happen when the risk is lower than the reward. A camera increases the risk so changes the balance. If a criminal chooses to not commit a crime (or commits it elsewhere) because the risk/reward balance is changed, then it prevented the crime from happening (there), and made that location safer. So there is no doubt that the cameras make places safer. Even fake cameras can make a location safer. The question is whether the cost to personal integrity makes it worth it. Most importantly: who answers that question, and who ensures the cameras aren't used for bad purposes? That's probably a smaller problem in London than in Beijing.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    Answer: daily double! (Just kidding.) Why not make cameras that output only encrypted video which may be stored by agencies and decrypted only when people holding the right keys come together during a trial or active police investigation? That would be strictly better for privacy than what we have now - which is total surveillance.
- some_random 7y ago
  That depends, having cameras up around your house certainly makes it a less appealing target than your neighbor who doesn't have cameras. Other than those sorts of situations though, yeah.
- wil421 7y ago
  Brookhaven is just north of Atlanta and when I lived there they implemented license plate cameras. They would scan for stolen cars and alert police. The police recovered more cars in the first month than the prior year combined. The companies are now selling to private communities. [1] [1]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/local/meet-the-new-neighborhood-watch-license-plate-reading-cameras/0ERKvCbdas9jHMms6n3QOK/amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/local/meet-the...
some_random 7y ago
Can we please stop pretending that the "ask a bunch of random people" tv news sections are at all representative of anything other than the opinions of the the aforementioned random people?
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  Seriously. Clueless people like the OP are why the 24/7 news channels are as strong as ever.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
psychrometer 7y ago
> Every single person said they were fine with surveillance if it made things safer. > A primary argument in favor of CCTV surveillance is improved law enforcement and crime prevention. We compared the number of public CCTV cameras with the crime and safety indices reported by Numbeo, which are based on surveys of that site’s visitors. > For both indices, the correlation was weak (r = 0.168, r = -0.168, n = 120). A higher number of cameras just barely correlates with a higher safety index and lower crime index.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  'Safer' doesn't equal 'safe'. What was the crime rate before CCTV? That's the only pertinent question.
- brlewis 7y ago
  > A higher number of cameras just barely correlates with a higher safety index and lower crime index. That makes an impressive case for cameras. I would have expected a negative correlation. People put up more cameras where there are more crimes.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > People put up more cameras where there are more crimes. There is no reason to expect that correlation to exist. People put up cameras where they can afford to buy cameras and have a local legislature that can be influenced by contractors who want to sell cameras, but having money is inversely correlated with high crime rates. There are more cameras in NYC than Detroit.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > For both indices, the correlation was weak (r = 0.168, r = -0.168, n = 120). A higher number of cameras just barely correlates with a higher safety index and lower crime index. That's also before you consider the trade off, both in privacy and in money. How much does it cost to put up all those cameras, and how far would that money go if applied to traditional law enforcement methods? Or just not spent because the cost still exceeds the benefit even if the benefit isn't statistically indistinguishable from zero?

by wil421 7y ago

reaperducer 7y ago

Marketing victims. We've been told for decades that "security" cameras make us safer. They don't. A guard might. But all a camera can do is provide evidence after the fact. By then you're already dead or robbed or worse.

alkonaut 7y ago
Crimes happen when the risk is lower than the reward. A camera increases the risk so changes the balance. If a criminal chooses to not commit a crime (or commits it elsewhere) because the risk/reward balance is changed, then it prevented the crime from happening (there), and made that location safer. So there is no doubt that the cameras make places safer. Even fake cameras can make a location safer. The question is whether the cost to personal integrity makes it worth it. Most importantly: who answers that question, and who ensures the cameras aren't used for bad purposes? That's probably a smaller problem in London than in Beijing.
- EGreg 7y ago
  Answer: daily double! (Just kidding.) Why not make cameras that output only encrypted video which may be stored by agencies and decrypted only when people holding the right keys come together during a trial or active police investigation? That would be strictly better for privacy than what we have now - which is total surveillance.
some_random 7y ago
That depends, having cameras up around your house certainly makes it a less appealing target than your neighbor who doesn't have cameras. Other than those sorts of situations though, yeah.
wil421 7y ago
Brookhaven is just north of Atlanta and when I lived there they implemented license plate cameras. They would scan for stolen cars and alert police. The police recovered more cars in the first month than the prior year combined. The companies are now selling to private communities. [1] [1]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/local/meet-the-new-neighborhood-watch-license-plate-reading-cameras/0ERKvCbdas9jHMms6n3QOK/amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/local/meet-the...

some_random 7y ago

Can we please stop pretending that the "ask a bunch of random people" tv news sections are at all representative of anything other than the opinions of the the aforementioned random people?

Dirlewanger 7y ago
Seriously. Clueless people like the OP are why the 24/7 news channels are as strong as ever.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

psychrometer 7y ago

> Every single person said they were fine with surveillance if it made things safer. > A primary argument in favor of CCTV surveillance is improved law enforcement and crime prevention. We compared the number of public CCTV cameras with the crime and safety indices reported by Numbeo, which are based on surveys of that site’s visitors. > For both indices, the correlation was weak (r = 0.168, r = -0.168, n = 120). A higher number of cameras just barely correlates with a higher safety index and lower crime index.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
'Safer' doesn't equal 'safe'. What was the crime rate before CCTV? That's the only pertinent question.
brlewis 7y ago
> A higher number of cameras just barely correlates with a higher safety index and lower crime index. That makes an impressive case for cameras. I would have expected a negative correlation. People put up more cameras where there are more crimes.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > People put up more cameras where there are more crimes. There is no reason to expect that correlation to exist. People put up cameras where they can afford to buy cameras and have a local legislature that can be influenced by contractors who want to sell cameras, but having money is inversely correlated with high crime rates. There are more cameras in NYC than Detroit.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> For both indices, the correlation was weak (r = 0.168, r = -0.168, n = 120). A higher number of cameras just barely correlates with a higher safety index and lower crime index. That's also before you consider the trade off, both in privacy and in money. How much does it cost to put up all those cameras, and how far would that money go if applied to traditional law enforcement methods? Or just not spent because the cost still exceeds the benefit even if the benefit isn't statistically indistinguishable from zero?