I'm really not sure where to begin on this mess of an article. I'm concerned about home security footage being easily available to authorities, but this throws

I'm really not sure where to begin on this mess of an article. I'm concerned about home security footage being easily available to authorities, but this throws the baby out with the bathwater by making a socioeconomic claim that only applies to a particular kind of urban neighborhood. On its face, this article suggests a 'surveillance state,' brought about by people surveilling their own property. The assumption here is that porch cameras are merely a way to attempt to stick it to thieves/pranksters who are simply the collateral damage of capitalism. However, porch cameras also function as communication devices, personal safety devices and informational devices about non-suspect behavior relevant to a resident. The underlying argument seems to be that the pursuit of 'safety' in the face of economic disparity and racial injustice is inherently discriminatory. Unfortunately, by hinging on porch cameras, it doesn't make much of a case. Is it possible to want to work towards a kind of universal justice but also not want a homeless shelter next to a kindergarten or the home where you are raising young children? Is it selfish to want to extend that to the elderly, or to single mothers, to yourself? And yes, there are elderly people, single mothers and even children in shelters, but some shelters consist largely of people struggling with powerful addiction and/or mental illness. On the other hand, there may not be a categorically better placement of the shelter, and we might even suggest that proximity to such facilities is the cost of dense urban living. To me, that's definitely worth writing and debating about, but this unfocused article built on controversial assumptions doesn't add much.