4 ms·
I would argue right to privacy until riding enough public transport and hitting enough incidents that make you wish someone was watching. Some incidents: 1. A
by dzink 4y ago
I would argue right to privacy until riding enough public transport and hitting enough incidents that make you wish someone was watching.
Some incidents:
1. A man as red as a tomato with anger yelling at the top of his lungs that he was going to kill a woman and following her out the door at Chicago’s blue line.
2. A woman begging with a toddler-aged child that was constantly drowsy / appeared sedated on a line multiple days, and weeks in a row.
3. The slashing of Nia’s throat in the Bay Area BART.
Eventually we stopped riding public transport, even if it was cheaper or more convenient/fun for the kids, because of fear of traumatizing incidents with little ones present. Its possible that the awareness of possibility of being recorded makes people behave better than they normally would. It’s also possible that public safety is better ensured if they know common abusers and somewhat reduce the abuse.
- throwaway743 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon Pros and cons as always. It can be used for good, but it will also eventually be abused. Personally feel that the cons outweigh the pros in the case of surveillance.
- fahrradflucht 4y agoDo you really think these things can be solved by surveillance? I doubt people like you are describing are deterred by that and I don’t think DHS will start hunting possible homeless beggars because they have recordings. What actually increases safety and one of the reason public transport was / felt safer in the past is more personal. If there are train guards on the ride or platform managers at the station, they can actually intervene. No surveillance necessary. But that obviously requires way more public transport funding.
- stickfigure 4y agoStuff like this happens: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5... Hard to imagine how to solve it without surveillance.
- Hello71 4y agoaccording to that article, the train and station already had surveillance cameras. the current post and comment thread are about surveillance microphones; how would that help with the investigation in your article, where we can reasonably assume that the robbers were shouting things like "open your bag" and "give me your wallet", and interview witnesses to confirm our assumption?
- Olphs 4y ago> Hard to imagine how to solve it without surveillance. Really? Hopefully not How about giving support for people who need it? How about giving teens options to do something else than roam the streets and gang up? How about giving support to stop generational drug use? How about showing these kids that they have a brighter future ahead if they choose to act on it? How about figuring out how to fix the massive polarisation of opinions, beliefs, income, opportunities etc.?
- stickfigure 4y agoSure, get to work on that. In the mean time, I'd just like to be able to ride BART without getting mugged.
- bell-cot 4y agoThis +100. Having Security Officers on buses costs an incredible amount of money. Over time, just one semi-regular "problem passenger" can drive away hundreds of regular transit users. Video/audio certainly can be done wrong, and won't magically fix the problem - but put yourself in the shoes of a transit system manager who's got both a tight budget and a problem passenger problem. You gotta DO SOMETHING to fix this! Full video & audio sure feel like they'd help get the police to do something, or a judge to sign a Protection Order, or the Prosecutor to press charges, or the jury to convict. And if the DHS is paying for it?
- JohnFen 4y ago> Having Security Officers on buses costs an incredible amount of money. So don't. Busses have drivers. Give them a red button to push when needed that will summon security officers to the next bus stop.