3 ms·

There's a lot of comparing apples to oranges 3. Shanghai, China – 2,985,984 cameras for 26,317,104 people = 113.46 cameras per 1,000 people 76. Tokyo, Japan -

There's a lot of comparing apples to oranges 3. Shanghai, China – 2,985,984 cameras for 26,317,104 people = 113.46 cameras per 1,000 people 76. Tokyo, Japan - 24,500 cameras for 37,435,191 people = 0.65 cameras per 1,000 people Well, first off what are we comparing? They list 26.3 million people for Shanghai and 37.4 million for Tokyo. That's comparing the metropolitian area of Tokyo (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama, Chiba) to just the city of Shangahi. Shanghai's metropolitian area population is closer to 33 million. If we change Tokyo to the city population (9.3m) which is what they used for Shanghai then Tokyo jumps to position 40 at 2.66 cameras per 1000 people. On top of that 24,500 seems awefully low for Tokyo. There are cameras everywhere and have been since I first got here 21 years ago. I always found it strange if the Japanese are so honest (perception may be different than reality) then why do they need so many cameras? Of course I haven't counted, just saying for a city so large and seeing the cameras stick out if you're looking it feels low. All of that is the long way of saying the data is highly suspect.

testplzignore 7y ago
The original article - https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/ https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surv... - explains the source of the data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bKBFiVXNzrgtW95j66Tpcj2OYmL-Gj-mKxvVvEN8aI8/edit#gid=979494433 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bKBFiVXNzrgtW95j66Tp... shows the source of the camera counts. The population counts came from http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/. Just the fact that the counts came from two different places make this data pretty dubious. A better methodology would be to do a physical audit. Have some people in each city manually count the number of cameras over some area, then extrapolate from there. This has the flaw of missing hidden or inaccessible cameras, but at least would be consistent.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > Have some people in each city manually count the number of cameras over some area, then extrapolate from there. This assumes a uniform distribution where one isn't obvious. Some places are bound to have more security than others.
  - ska 7y ago
    It doesn't really make that assumption unless you assume simple linear extrapolation. It wouldn't be easy but I expect a decent modeling and extrapolation scheme could be devised. I don't think it matters much though, as a simple count of cameras isn't so useful (especially with them being so cheap now). How many cameras is less important than what they cover and what they are connected to.
  - cowpig 7y ago
    If you cut up the municipality into uniform sizes, and then randomly sample from that to do your counts it should account for that problem I think.
    - greggman2 7y ago
      Is that true? I'd only guess there are more cameras in Times Square than Wastingtion Square in NYC. I don't know how you would divide most cities into areas of uniform camera coverage such that totaling one area is representative of all other areas in that city. Most cities have several hot spots
- godelski 7y ago
  > Just the fact that the counts came from two different places make this data pretty dubious. Why? Multiple sources shouldn't matter, it is the quality of sources. If you're gathering data you shouldn't expect it to all come from one place. There's no single source that tracks every single thing. At some point you're going to have to gather data from multiple sources, especially if you're trying to make comparisons that others haven't.
acchow 7y ago
> I always found it strange if the Japanese are so honest (perception may be different than reality) then why do they need so many cameras? Solving the long tail end has decreasing returns. If you already have a well-behaving society, then adding a few cameras probably won't change anything at all. You need a whole lot of cameras to have any meaningful effect.
taneq 7y ago
> I always found it strange if the Japanese are so honest (perception may be different than reality) then why do they need so many cameras? Is it part of the zero-unemployment busywork culture?

testplzignore 7y ago

The original article - https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/ https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surv... - explains the source of the data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bKBFiVXNzrgtW95j66Tpcj2OYmL-Gj-mKxvVvEN8aI8/edit#gid=979494433 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bKBFiVXNzrgtW95j66Tp... shows the source of the camera counts. The population counts came from http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/. Just the fact that the counts came from two different places make this data pretty dubious. A better methodology would be to do a physical audit. Have some people in each city manually count the number of cameras over some area, then extrapolate from there. This has the flaw of missing hidden or inaccessible cameras, but at least would be consistent.

cameronbrown 7y ago
> Have some people in each city manually count the number of cameras over some area, then extrapolate from there. This assumes a uniform distribution where one isn't obvious. Some places are bound to have more security than others.
- ska 7y ago
  It doesn't really make that assumption unless you assume simple linear extrapolation. It wouldn't be easy but I expect a decent modeling and extrapolation scheme could be devised. I don't think it matters much though, as a simple count of cameras isn't so useful (especially with them being so cheap now). How many cameras is less important than what they cover and what they are connected to.
- cowpig 7y ago
  If you cut up the municipality into uniform sizes, and then randomly sample from that to do your counts it should account for that problem I think.
  - greggman2 7y ago
    Is that true? I'd only guess there are more cameras in Times Square than Wastingtion Square in NYC. I don't know how you would divide most cities into areas of uniform camera coverage such that totaling one area is representative of all other areas in that city. Most cities have several hot spots
godelski 7y ago
> Just the fact that the counts came from two different places make this data pretty dubious. Why? Multiple sources shouldn't matter, it is the quality of sources. If you're gathering data you shouldn't expect it to all come from one place. There's no single source that tracks every single thing. At some point you're going to have to gather data from multiple sources, especially if you're trying to make comparisons that others haven't.

acchow 7y ago

> I always found it strange if the Japanese are so honest (perception may be different than reality) then why do they need so many cameras? Solving the long tail end has decreasing returns. If you already have a well-behaving society, then adding a few cameras probably won't change anything at all. You need a whole lot of cameras to have any meaningful effect.

taneq 7y ago

> I always found it strange if the Japanese are so honest (perception may be different than reality) then why do they need so many cameras? Is it part of the zero-unemployment busywork culture?