4 ms·

You can surrender all of your liberties, and not actually end up any safer. People are scared, and being scared, want to do something - and going through bagga

You can surrender all of your liberties, and not actually end up any safer. People are scared, and being scared, want to do something - and going through baggage checks, installing cameras, scanners, pat downs - well that all feels like doing something. Of course, it's not really, it's theater.

factotum 7y ago
Our cameras have helped us identify the person who broke into our car a few weeks ago. That is not theater.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Did you get back your items? Was the person arrested and charged appropriately? My neighbors have posted many reasonably clear, useful images of break-ins and shared them with the police. It has done no actual good - no items recovered, no perpetrators dissuaded.
  - factotum 7y ago
    Nothing was stolen, but if the person keeps doing it and is caught, that's just more evidence against them. Things like this often play out over a long period of time. I'd rather work towards actively deterring people than sit here and think up infinite paranoid scenarios.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      I once caught dashcam footage of a hit and run. Clearly see the license plate, the vehicle occupant - easy case closed stuff. Called the local non-emergency number for the police station and they wouldn't even give me a place to send the footage, much less do anything about the fleeing driver. Had I been smarter, I would have given it to the insurance company of the car that had been hit - but lesson learned for next time. Footage does nothing to deter people and it has no consequences. It can only be used against the interest of common people - because stopping crime does not lead to meaningful profit. Selling security devices to folks, charging per the hour for security checkpoints, selling x-ray machines, well, that's very profitable - but you can't do those things when nobody is concerned. Harvesting data, selling facial profiles - again, profitable, extremely so.
      - ilikehurdles 7y ago
        I've had a bike stolen from a closed off area surrounded by cameras and needing badges to enter. The police were called and didn't even bother with pulling footage, in fact no one did. I've heard almost a hundred stories about dashcams capturing the plates of at-fault drivers in accidents and nothing coming of it.
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        This is a problem with shitty police departments, not cameras.
bernierocks 7y ago
'You can surrender all of your liberties, and not actually end up any safer." You mean giving up my ability to defend myself with a gun (many want to remove the rights of law abiding citizens) or use a camera to catch potential criminals (what you are proposing here in your comments)? Like I said, I have cameras in my house and have already prevented at least a couple of crimes. It has made me safer for sure. "well that all feels like doing something. Of course, it's not really, it's theater." We haven't had a major attack in the US since 9/11. It's really almost impossible to prove what someone would have done without the security and decided against it.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  We didn't have a major terror attack in the US using airplanes before 9/11 either. For what it's worth, I've never spilled coffee on myself when wearing my lucky blue shirt either. People should defend their liberties, whether that's a right to privacy or a right to own firearms. Having a camera is not de facto bad - but having a camera whose data is controlled by a for-profit company is a shift away from liberty.
  - bernierocks 7y ago
    "shift away from liberty." We have the freedom to choose a company like Ring/Amazon. It's not forced on us by the government. "We didn't have a major terror attack in the US using airplanes before 9/11 either" We also didn't have the terrorists with that level of sophistication. We still do today. Increased security definitely has a role in a decrease of terror attacks, but how much or how little would be needed to maintain this level? That much is unknown.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Terrorists have always been complex - both foreign and domestic, both in the last century and the last millenia. Terrorism is not new. Profiting nakedly off of the threat of it is.. well, unusual. Remember that the people selling you security are not reliable indicators of truth. They are profiteers - and you are the one they profit from. You can choose to do business with Amazon - but you can't choose if their cameras record you or if your facial profile gets added to their services. You don't get to object when the fed subpeonas AWS for that info because you don't get standing. You are not the consumer, you are the product.

factotum 7y ago

Our cameras have helped us identify the person who broke into our car a few weeks ago. That is not theater.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Did you get back your items? Was the person arrested and charged appropriately? My neighbors have posted many reasonably clear, useful images of break-ins and shared them with the police. It has done no actual good - no items recovered, no perpetrators dissuaded.
- factotum 7y ago
  Nothing was stolen, but if the person keeps doing it and is caught, that's just more evidence against them. Things like this often play out over a long period of time. I'd rather work towards actively deterring people than sit here and think up infinite paranoid scenarios.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    I once caught dashcam footage of a hit and run. Clearly see the license plate, the vehicle occupant - easy case closed stuff. Called the local non-emergency number for the police station and they wouldn't even give me a place to send the footage, much less do anything about the fleeing driver. Had I been smarter, I would have given it to the insurance company of the car that had been hit - but lesson learned for next time. Footage does nothing to deter people and it has no consequences. It can only be used against the interest of common people - because stopping crime does not lead to meaningful profit. Selling security devices to folks, charging per the hour for security checkpoints, selling x-ray machines, well, that's very profitable - but you can't do those things when nobody is concerned. Harvesting data, selling facial profiles - again, profitable, extremely so.
    - ilikehurdles 7y ago
      I've had a bike stolen from a closed off area surrounded by cameras and needing badges to enter. The police were called and didn't even bother with pulling footage, in fact no one did. I've heard almost a hundred stories about dashcams capturing the plates of at-fault drivers in accidents and nothing coming of it.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      This is a problem with shitty police departments, not cameras.

bernierocks 7y ago

'You can surrender all of your liberties, and not actually end up any safer." You mean giving up my ability to defend myself with a gun (many want to remove the rights of law abiding citizens) or use a camera to catch potential criminals (what you are proposing here in your comments)? Like I said, I have cameras in my house and have already prevented at least a couple of crimes. It has made me safer for sure. "well that all feels like doing something. Of course, it's not really, it's theater." We haven't had a major attack in the US since 9/11. It's really almost impossible to prove what someone would have done without the security and decided against it.

vorpalhex 7y ago
We didn't have a major terror attack in the US using airplanes before 9/11 either. For what it's worth, I've never spilled coffee on myself when wearing my lucky blue shirt either. People should defend their liberties, whether that's a right to privacy or a right to own firearms. Having a camera is not de facto bad - but having a camera whose data is controlled by a for-profit company is a shift away from liberty.
- bernierocks 7y ago
  "shift away from liberty." We have the freedom to choose a company like Ring/Amazon. It's not forced on us by the government. "We didn't have a major terror attack in the US using airplanes before 9/11 either" We also didn't have the terrorists with that level of sophistication. We still do today. Increased security definitely has a role in a decrease of terror attacks, but how much or how little would be needed to maintain this level? That much is unknown.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Terrorists have always been complex - both foreign and domestic, both in the last century and the last millenia. Terrorism is not new. Profiting nakedly off of the threat of it is.. well, unusual. Remember that the people selling you security are not reliable indicators of truth. They are profiteers - and you are the one they profit from. You can choose to do business with Amazon - but you can't choose if their cameras record you or if your facial profile gets added to their services. You don't get to object when the fed subpeonas AWS for that info because you don't get standing. You are not the consumer, you are the product.