3 ms·
> The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people. That kind of thinking was easy for me back when I
by engeljohnb 3y ago
> The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people.
That kind of thinking was easy for me back when I was living in a safe area. Now I've had to move to a sketchy neighborhood, and if "surveillance" helps to keep my girlfriend from being r----, that's an acceptable tradeoff for me at this time.
- Juliate 3y agoI totally accept this, I think I would (re)act the same. But not without being still conflicted: this is kind of a privatisation of security. What should be available and enforced for everyone (security of people and things) is abdicated by the society authorities, and instead of resorting to pressure them to do their job (educate, prevent, accompany, protect), people take the fast/"easier" solution of a private, paid-for solution which promise is still dubious (as it does not completely remove the anxiety but can well fuel it). Private security companies, insurances and tech equipment sellers all have an interest in this. And again, state/communal responsibility is abdicated. Overall, it cost more to the same population to go towards the private solutions, rather than pushing, either for the same equipment/guarantees, but through a common public requirement (because costs would be bundled), either for a voluntary policy in urbanisation, education and prevention (because of the side effects).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- brokenmachine 3y agoHow are cameras going to stop that from happening? They could possibly help with attribution after-the-fact but wouldn't stop it from happening. I'd suggest taking other more effective measures if you're worried about that happening.