6 ms·

I suppose we could call this the democratization of policing (and not so much a police state, though debatable depending on interrelationship and politization).

by mc32 5y ago

I suppose we could call this the democratization of policing (and not so much a police state, though debatable depending on interrelationship and politization). In some ways, but not all ways, it harkens back to a time when the smallness of towns and the percentage of people in towns meant that over 90% of people lived under “democratic” surveillance. One major difference is that today you cannot skip town to start a new life with a clean, if unknown slate. Your history will follow you and we’re not allowing for people to turn a leaf as easily as before. At the same time it means serious offenders will have a harder time getting away with violent crime.

giantg2 5y ago
"I suppose we could call this the democratization of policing (and not so much a police state, though debatable depending on interrelationship and politization)." Not even close in my opinion. All the authority, discretion, power, and immunity is retained by the police. They're simply using citizen's hardware/info, possibly to the detriment of that same citizen (depends on how far they expand the use).
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  Yes, but I would say "...retained by tech giants like Amazon and Google, and to a lesser degree the police..."
woodruffw 5y ago
I think this is more the distribution of surveillance capacity rather than policing itself -- the police have retained the monopoly on violence, and seem relatively content to push the burden of investigative work onto private citizens (with all of the petty erosion of privacy that results).
- mc32 5y ago
  There are pros and cons. If the population at large didn’t commit crime (in a perfect world) we wouldn’t need policing. Given that’s just fantasy, policing is for now necessary. Distributed citizen policing devolved this back into the citizenry. Is that good, or is it bad? It has both. On the one hand everyone will have biases for and against things. On the other hand, those under threat have better recourse (against stalkers, casing a home, burglaries, etc.)
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Without getting into whether we need policing in general, I don't think this adequately explains why we need either American-style policing or this kind of creeping devolvement of tax-funded responsibilities back to untrained private citizens and companies.
    - mc32 5y ago
      What do you mean by American-style policing? What sort of policing is significantly different from it and how many countries does that exist in?
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        When I say "American-style," I mean a few characteristics that I understand to be mostly unique to American law enforcement: * Devolvement to the lowest levels of municipal and/or county government, making standardization of training and practices across the entire country (much less individual states) virtually impossible. This is in contrast to countries like France, where the national police forces are an order of magnitude larger than municipal forces and command correspondingly greater authority. * Use of force & weapons-carrying. It's my understanding that the vast majority of normal LEOs in Western Europe do not carry guns on them during their normal patrols, and that use-of-force incidents (including civilian deaths) are correspondingly lower in most of Europe[1]. * Prevalence of policing fraternities and unions. Again, it's my understanding that these are a somewhat unique feature of American police forces: other countries might have labor protections for LEOs, but do not have pseudo-official organizations that provide cover for officer abuses. The closest thing I'm aware of is the ECP[2], which seems to be more of a legislative group. [1]: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-differen... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Confederation_of_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Confederation_of_Poli...
        Clubber 5y ago
        Qualified immunity and self regulation are big ones. I'm not sure if police in other countries can kill people for dubious reasons and the legal results is, "they acted within the policy and the law." Also deferment of consequence. When a cop does something wrong, neither he, nor his union, nor the department, nor his pension fund, nor his budget face any financial consequences; that's a burden of the city, ultimately the tax payor, who ironically is the group being infringed upon.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > police have retained the monopoly on violence The rise of distributed private security à la e.g. Citizen’s subscription service is a counrerfactual, albeit weak one, to this claim.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > The rise of distributed private security à la e.g. Citizen’s subscription service is a counrerfactual, albeit weak one, to this claim. Private security forces have always existed! I don't think these provide a counterpoint, given that they lack any meaningful legal authority. At best, they're another example of police authorities devolving the grinding, boring enforcement work that they're ostensibly paid by citizens to do.
buescher 5y ago
People moving far away and turning their lives around makes a great story for a reason: I'd bet it almost never happens (or happened).
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Just as common is the story about the suspicious small town with police that chase away any outsiders, probably for this reason
- mc32 5y ago
  It still happens: someone did something terrible sometimes not so terrible, takes on another identity and lives an unremarkable life till DNA (not necessarily from a crime) catches up to them.
  - buescher 5y ago
    Great story.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
lettergram 5y ago
> At the same time it means serious offenders will have a harder time getting away with violent crime. Isn’t the murder solve rate in Oakland, San Francisco, Chicago, etc well all below 50%. Either the murders are allowed or the methods are failing. Imo the only real reason we even see murder rates falling are due to cell phones. People can call for help and survive more. That’s why we see so many people shot, but fewer murders than the 90s. Violence is up.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  murder numbers in the USA are lower due to excellent emergency room hospital care for gun wounds source: Kaiser medical system Registered Nurse
snarf21 5y ago
True but this is missing the point. No one is asking why so many people are stealing packages. The stealing is a symptom. How often would you get lucky on an Amazon package? How much could you re-sell a new pair of $100 women's boots size 7 for? $20? 85% of convicted burglaries are substance abuse related. We don't need a police state, we need free social programs to help people with substance abuse. Sadly, our country has lost all empathy. Screw the homeless, poor, disabled, and addicted. They just have to choose to make their lives better. Excuse me, I need to go buy more dogecoin with my stimulus.
- mc32 5y ago
  This isn’t a small town thief trying to make enough to get a dime bag. These ops are run by organized syndicates. The people at the front can be druggies but not even half the time.
- ryan93 5y ago
  The people who deserve empathy definitely arent those who choose to do drugs and commit drugs to pay for it. Ill reserve empathy for people who were forced to take drugs and couldnt help their addiction.
wesapien 5y ago
What you call democratic surveillance or democratized policing people would just call it looking out for each other or have each others backs. Environments with high social trust often do that. Places where people know each other.

by mc32 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"I suppose we could call this the democratization of policing (and not so much a police state, though debatable depending on interrelationship and politization)." Not even close in my opinion. All the authority, discretion, power, and immunity is retained by the police. They're simply using citizen's hardware/info, possibly to the detriment of that same citizen (depends on how far they expand the use).

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
Yes, but I would say "...retained by tech giants like Amazon and Google, and to a lesser degree the police..."

woodruffw 5y ago

I think this is more the distribution of surveillance capacity rather than policing itself -- the police have retained the monopoly on violence, and seem relatively content to push the burden of investigative work onto private citizens (with all of the petty erosion of privacy that results).

mc32 5y ago
There are pros and cons. If the population at large didn’t commit crime (in a perfect world) we wouldn’t need policing. Given that’s just fantasy, policing is for now necessary. Distributed citizen policing devolved this back into the citizenry. Is that good, or is it bad? It has both. On the one hand everyone will have biases for and against things. On the other hand, those under threat have better recourse (against stalkers, casing a home, burglaries, etc.)
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Without getting into whether we need policing in general, I don't think this adequately explains why we need either American-style policing or this kind of creeping devolvement of tax-funded responsibilities back to untrained private citizens and companies.
  - mc32 5y ago
    What do you mean by American-style policing? What sort of policing is significantly different from it and how many countries does that exist in?
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      When I say "American-style," I mean a few characteristics that I understand to be mostly unique to American law enforcement: * Devolvement to the lowest levels of municipal and/or county government, making standardization of training and practices across the entire country (much less individual states) virtually impossible. This is in contrast to countries like France, where the national police forces are an order of magnitude larger than municipal forces and command correspondingly greater authority. * Use of force & weapons-carrying. It's my understanding that the vast majority of normal LEOs in Western Europe do not carry guns on them during their normal patrols, and that use-of-force incidents (including civilian deaths) are correspondingly lower in most of Europe[1]. * Prevalence of policing fraternities and unions. Again, it's my understanding that these are a somewhat unique feature of American police forces: other countries might have labor protections for LEOs, but do not have pseudo-official organizations that provide cover for officer abuses. The closest thing I'm aware of is the ECP[2], which seems to be more of a legislative group. [1]: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-differen... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Confederation_of_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Confederation_of_Poli...
      - Clubber 5y ago
        Qualified immunity and self regulation are big ones. I'm not sure if police in other countries can kill people for dubious reasons and the legal results is, "they acted within the policy and the law." Also deferment of consequence. When a cop does something wrong, neither he, nor his union, nor the department, nor his pension fund, nor his budget face any financial consequences; that's a burden of the city, ultimately the tax payor, who ironically is the group being infringed upon.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> police have retained the monopoly on violence The rise of distributed private security à la e.g. Citizen’s subscription service is a counrerfactual, albeit weak one, to this claim.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > The rise of distributed private security à la e.g. Citizen’s subscription service is a counrerfactual, albeit weak one, to this claim. Private security forces have always existed! I don't think these provide a counterpoint, given that they lack any meaningful legal authority. At best, they're another example of police authorities devolving the grinding, boring enforcement work that they're ostensibly paid by citizens to do.

buescher 5y ago

People moving far away and turning their lives around makes a great story for a reason: I'd bet it almost never happens (or happened).

thatguy0900 5y ago
Just as common is the story about the suspicious small town with police that chase away any outsiders, probably for this reason
mc32 5y ago
It still happens: someone did something terrible sometimes not so terrible, takes on another identity and lives an unremarkable life till DNA (not necessarily from a crime) catches up to them.
- buescher 5y ago
  Great story.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

lettergram 5y ago

> At the same time it means serious offenders will have a harder time getting away with violent crime. Isn’t the murder solve rate in Oakland, San Francisco, Chicago, etc well all below 50%. Either the murders are allowed or the methods are failing. Imo the only real reason we even see murder rates falling are due to cell phones. People can call for help and survive more. That’s why we see so many people shot, but fewer murders than the 90s. Violence is up.

mistrial9 5y ago
murder numbers in the USA are lower due to excellent emergency room hospital care for gun wounds source: Kaiser medical system Registered Nurse

snarf21 5y ago

True but this is missing the point. No one is asking why so many people are stealing packages. The stealing is a symptom. How often would you get lucky on an Amazon package? How much could you re-sell a new pair of $100 women's boots size 7 for? $20? 85% of convicted burglaries are substance abuse related. We don't need a police state, we need free social programs to help people with substance abuse. Sadly, our country has lost all empathy. Screw the homeless, poor, disabled, and addicted. They just have to choose to make their lives better. Excuse me, I need to go buy more dogecoin with my stimulus.

mc32 5y ago
This isn’t a small town thief trying to make enough to get a dime bag. These ops are run by organized syndicates. The people at the front can be druggies but not even half the time.
ryan93 5y ago
The people who deserve empathy definitely arent those who choose to do drugs and commit drugs to pay for it. Ill reserve empathy for people who were forced to take drugs and couldnt help their addiction.

wesapien 5y ago

What you call democratic surveillance or democratized policing people would just call it looking out for each other or have each others backs. Environments with high social trust often do that. Places where people know each other.