4 ms·

But what about crime? Surveillance really does stop crime. America has parts of cities that are too dangerous to walk alone in at night, and it's so well known

But what about crime? Surveillance really does stop crime. America has parts of cities that are too dangerous to walk alone in at night, and it's so well known that if somebody is murdered doing that, people blame the victim for being too stupid. That's how ingrained the acceptance of crime is. Being able to safely leave your house whenever you want should be a pretty high priority for a good city. What's the alternative to surveillance? Lots of police patrolling everywhere? Isn't that equally creepy but also much more expensive?

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
London, the most famous example of a surveillance city, sees far more crime than similar, privacy-conscious cities such as Berlin or Vancouver or Paris. So surveillance is certainly no silver bullet. If you check the literature, you'll find that it tends to have modest benefits mostly on property crime, but some of that is simply moved to other areas. Violent crime is decidedly rare these days. I guarantee you there is no city or town in the US today that is not far safer now than the US average in the 70s. Of the remaining violence, murders are rarely committed by strangers. Just 11% in the US in 2016, for example. And those tend to be either mass shootings or otherwise psychologically disturbed individuals, who rarely care about capture. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/nyregion/killed-by-a-stranger-a-rare-event-but-a-rising-fear.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/nyregion/killed-by-a-stra...
titzer 7y ago
It used to be that people thought about deep societal issues that might underlie the causes for crime, like joblessness, drug addiction, poor education, lack of job opportunities, gangs, being poor. Apparently today we've lost the imagination for this and the only choices left are more police or more cameras.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  They're the only choices that have any chance of happening. I absolutely agree we should solve not crime specifically, but the terrible lifelong personal suffering that causes it. For every violent criminal, there must be a lot of harmless damaged people. We need to fix parenting to prevent neglect, abuse and incompetence. But how can you do that without being even more authoritarian than surveillance?
  - titzer 7y ago
    Like I said, we've lost the imagination to think about investing in society. It's gonna cost money, time and effort, none of which people want to spend these days. You gotta stop treating people like criminals. You gotta invest in education, healthcare, addiction programs. You gotta hire people--sociologists, psychologists, educators, and yes some policemen. You gotta set up government departments that are dedicated to studying people's well being and tracking long term trends. You gotta have effective social programs. You gotta stop the propaganda lies that socialism is the same is communism or is some kind of authoritarian nightmare--it isn't. Socialism is high taxes to pay for effective government services run by well-paid professional bureaucrats who know what the heck they are doing. Period. And for fuck's sake, you gotta stop spending trillions on pointless wars, hyper-advanced killing technology, and tax cuts for the rich. In short, do everything the opposite of what America is doing.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

London, the most famous example of a surveillance city, sees far more crime than similar, privacy-conscious cities such as Berlin or Vancouver or Paris. So surveillance is certainly no silver bullet. If you check the literature, you'll find that it tends to have modest benefits mostly on property crime, but some of that is simply moved to other areas. Violent crime is decidedly rare these days. I guarantee you there is no city or town in the US today that is not far safer now than the US average in the 70s. Of the remaining violence, murders are rarely committed by strangers. Just 11% in the US in 2016, for example. And those tend to be either mass shootings or otherwise psychologically disturbed individuals, who rarely care about capture. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/nyregion/killed-by-a-stranger-a-rare-event-but-a-rising-fear.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/nyregion/killed-by-a-stra...

titzer 7y ago

It used to be that people thought about deep societal issues that might underlie the causes for crime, like joblessness, drug addiction, poor education, lack of job opportunities, gangs, being poor. Apparently today we've lost the imagination for this and the only choices left are more police or more cameras.

lopmotr 7y ago
They're the only choices that have any chance of happening. I absolutely agree we should solve not crime specifically, but the terrible lifelong personal suffering that causes it. For every violent criminal, there must be a lot of harmless damaged people. We need to fix parenting to prevent neglect, abuse and incompetence. But how can you do that without being even more authoritarian than surveillance?
- titzer 7y ago
  Like I said, we've lost the imagination to think about investing in society. It's gonna cost money, time and effort, none of which people want to spend these days. You gotta stop treating people like criminals. You gotta invest in education, healthcare, addiction programs. You gotta hire people--sociologists, psychologists, educators, and yes some policemen. You gotta set up government departments that are dedicated to studying people's well being and tracking long term trends. You gotta have effective social programs. You gotta stop the propaganda lies that socialism is the same is communism or is some kind of authoritarian nightmare--it isn't. Socialism is high taxes to pay for effective government services run by well-paid professional bureaucrats who know what the heck they are doing. Period. And for fuck's sake, you gotta stop spending trillions on pointless wars, hyper-advanced killing technology, and tax cuts for the rich. In short, do everything the opposite of what America is doing.