3 ms·

I don't know how to say this any nicer than this: I'm sorry you live in such fear. It isn’t normal and you should figure out why and work to fix it. I live in

I don't know how to say this any nicer than this: I'm sorry you live in such fear. It isn’t normal and you should figure out why and work to fix it. I live in one of the most densely populated areas of the country. I've been here for a decade. Not only have I never seen so much as mere property crime (and it is "mere"), I don't have any reason to fear it. T the contrary--I have a greater reason to fear the unregulated panopticon the fearful wish to impose upon me. Your attitude makes society worse and you should rethink it.

throwawaysea 7y ago
You are accusing me of living in fear and yet you’re painting a picture of a “panopticon” that is itself fear based and hypothetical, whereas my fear has real crimes and statistics behind it. We retain police forces because deterring crime and catching criminals is important. Making the job of the police easier helps society get better, not worse. Your position seems to be that we should be ok with criminals being free and out at large, potentially victimizing others too. Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Like an assault or burglary? If someone gets raped do you tell them “it isn’t normal to be fearful and you should work on fixing that?” This seems like textbook victim-shaming to me. Helping solve crime is not the same as a dystopia.
- eropple 7y ago
  See, the thing is--I'm reasonable. If you want to run your own security system, stored locally, and provide that data to and only to the police when and only when a crime occurs? Fine. We can deal with that as a society and as communities. But the thing is, even that is horseshit. It's not "helping solve crime". Even with a photo ID, the police in most jurisdictions are not going to go out of their way to do anything about property crime. (Nor, really, should they, unless somebody's actually harmed.) Privately managed, secure, local and unshared recordings are fine. Ring and other scumshit "security" peddlers? It's a gimmick for data-slurping corporate-interest assholes to get additional on-the-ground data about people for whom there was no attempt to acquire permission, let alone any moral right to do it. That's why these things exist. Don't fall for the fucking okeydoke.

throwawaysea 7y ago

You are accusing me of living in fear and yet you’re painting a picture of a “panopticon” that is itself fear based and hypothetical, whereas my fear has real crimes and statistics behind it. We retain police forces because deterring crime and catching criminals is important. Making the job of the police easier helps society get better, not worse. Your position seems to be that we should be ok with criminals being free and out at large, potentially victimizing others too. Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Like an assault or burglary? If someone gets raped do you tell them “it isn’t normal to be fearful and you should work on fixing that?” This seems like textbook victim-shaming to me. Helping solve crime is not the same as a dystopia.

eropple 7y ago
See, the thing is--I'm reasonable. If you want to run your own security system, stored locally, and provide that data to and only to the police when and only when a crime occurs? Fine. We can deal with that as a society and as communities. But the thing is, even that is horseshit. It's not "helping solve crime". Even with a photo ID, the police in most jurisdictions are not going to go out of their way to do anything about property crime. (Nor, really, should they, unless somebody's actually harmed.) Privately managed, secure, local and unshared recordings are fine. Ring and other scumshit "security" peddlers? It's a gimmick for data-slurping corporate-interest assholes to get additional on-the-ground data about people for whom there was no attempt to acquire permission, let alone any moral right to do it. That's why these things exist. Don't fall for the fucking okeydoke.