5 ms·

Huge huge fan of increased surveillance in public places. The reason is that it's pretty well proven that likelihood of getting caught for crimes is much better

by cm2012 2y ago

Huge huge fan of increased surveillance in public places. The reason is that it's pretty well proven that likelihood of getting caught for crimes is much better at deterrence than severity of sentence. By enforcing crimes more consistently, we can actually reduce incarceration.

svieira 2y ago
And I am a huge opponent of it because anything that can be used to track criminals can be used to track everyone. And if everyone is a criminal (imagine the-other-guy getting control of the system) then you are not actually deterring anyone, simply ensuring that whoever-is-on-the-outside is going to get the law coming down on them hard while whoever-is-on-the-inside will get let go in spite of direct evidence of their misdeeds being streamed to the cloud 24x7x365.
- pixl97 2y ago
  [flagged]
infecto 2y ago
I am in a similar boat. I appreciate that there is opposition so that we can keep a balance but I am pro surveillance as well. There is potential for abuse but I also recognize that as a regions population increases, sometimes you have to conform to things to create a stable society. I would love a national ID that I could use everywhere. Again ripe for abuse but I can see the benefits outweighing the negatives.
- itsanaccount 2y ago
  I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there. I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."
  - infecto 2y ago
    >I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there. >I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society." And here is a prime example of why discourse is so hard in the modern era. Please don't create outrage where none exists. Please don't bring politics into something that is not political. As society progresses its harder to just go with the flow and not have different types of regulation. You would expect everyone to be a rational actor, but they are not. There is a minimum level of conformity required for most functioning societies. Happy that people disagree with my take on public surveillance but disappointed with your sense of false outrage and brashness. It so sad this is what pollutes so much of our information and discourse.
    - staticshock 2y ago
      I see quite a bit more false outrage in your statements than in the ones you're replying to. Also, on what grounds do you consider your position to be apolitical? Self-evidence?
      - infecto 2y ago
        To each their own. I am far from outraged but I guess it depends what biased lens you look at it through. Why does a position need to be political? Of course in modern US politics, party lines are stronger than ever and by identifying strongly with a party you generally identify with certain positions. But I don't believe its true that to have a position or view of the world means you have a political position. Being political, and outraged for that matter, happens when you tell someone to go somewhere else to live or explicitly bring (by naming) politics into a discussion. I like the idea of having cameras everywhere, along with the idea that I like all police to wear cameras to hold everyone in the interaction accountable.
        grraaaaahhh 2y ago
        >Why does a position need to be political? Mass surveillance involves giving the government, an inherently political entity, and its partners in the private sector increased power over public life. It's hard to get a more political issue than that.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
We can also expand what is considered a crime too. Without the cameras, cost/benefit just makes it impossible to enforce some tyrannical edicts, but if we all live in a fishbowl monitored by computers whose machine learning can flag nearly any activity, wow, just think of the possibilities. We don't even need to formally punish these, some interest group will just call up your employers and suggest very strongly that it would embarrass them deeply if they continued to employ you.
tenebrisalietum 2y ago
The statement "By enforcing crimes more consistently, we can actually reduce incarceration" sounds logical and reasonable, but actually isn't necessarily true unless A and B below are also true. A. Actions that are considered crimes do not change over time. B. Incentives to catch and prosecute crimes are not KPIed based on incarceration rates.
rpgwaiter 2y ago
Ya know what also deters crimes? Having your needs met. I bet the money spent towards this spying apparatus could have been spent on housing programs, education, healthcare. Nah, lets give it to a company to make it easier to punish people.
- cm2012 2y ago
  The evidence for this hypothesis is not great
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  Panopticon cameras are cheap, and jails are profitable.
mrguyorama 2y ago
Cops have not demonstrated that access to more surveillance actually helps them catch more people. Meanwhile they still keep getting caught on their own bodycams dropping "evidence" like a bag of cocaine (where did the cop get that I wonder....) to screw innocent people over, at least when they aren't doing it with the bodycam off. In fact, despite massive increases to surveillance tech, including cops having the location of anyone's cell phone whenever they want it thanks to private companies that are allowed to sell such data to cops with pretty much no limits, even though the cops themselves are not supposed to have such data, the clearance rate for violent crime is abysmal, 30ish percent. Meanwhile property crime clearance rates are EVEN LOWER, at about 12%. We don't even keep good stats about white collar crime meanwhile... Before we give the cops more toys to harass us with, can we at least make them demonstrate they actually use the tools they have? Right now cops demonstrably do not do their jobs.
perhonen 2y ago
nah i'll take the crime thanks

by cm2012 2y ago

svieira 2y ago

And I am a huge opponent of it because anything that can be used to track criminals can be used to track everyone. And if everyone is a criminal (imagine the-other-guy getting control of the system) then you are not actually deterring anyone, simply ensuring that whoever-is-on-the-outside is going to get the law coming down on them hard while whoever-is-on-the-inside will get let go in spite of direct evidence of their misdeeds being streamed to the cloud 24x7x365.

pixl97 2y ago
[flagged]

infecto 2y ago

I am in a similar boat. I appreciate that there is opposition so that we can keep a balance but I am pro surveillance as well. There is potential for abuse but I also recognize that as a regions population increases, sometimes you have to conform to things to create a stable society. I would love a national ID that I could use everywhere. Again ripe for abuse but I can see the benefits outweighing the negatives.

itsanaccount 2y ago
I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there. I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society."
- infecto 2y ago
  >I believe in people getting exactly the government they deserve. Just so long as its regionally voted for (which excludes national ID), you should definitely go and live there. >I myself will stay far away from any Leopards Eating People's Faces Party areas and their "stable society." And here is a prime example of why discourse is so hard in the modern era. Please don't create outrage where none exists. Please don't bring politics into something that is not political. As society progresses its harder to just go with the flow and not have different types of regulation. You would expect everyone to be a rational actor, but they are not. There is a minimum level of conformity required for most functioning societies. Happy that people disagree with my take on public surveillance but disappointed with your sense of false outrage and brashness. It so sad this is what pollutes so much of our information and discourse.
  - staticshock 2y ago
    I see quite a bit more false outrage in your statements than in the ones you're replying to. Also, on what grounds do you consider your position to be apolitical? Self-evidence?
    - infecto 2y ago
      To each their own. I am far from outraged but I guess it depends what biased lens you look at it through. Why does a position need to be political? Of course in modern US politics, party lines are stronger than ever and by identifying strongly with a party you generally identify with certain positions. But I don't believe its true that to have a position or view of the world means you have a political position. Being political, and outraged for that matter, happens when you tell someone to go somewhere else to live or explicitly bring (by naming) politics into a discussion. I like the idea of having cameras everywhere, along with the idea that I like all police to wear cameras to hold everyone in the interaction accountable.
      - grraaaaahhh 2y ago
        >Why does a position need to be political? Mass surveillance involves giving the government, an inherently political entity, and its partners in the private sector increased power over public life. It's hard to get a more political issue than that.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

We can also expand what is considered a crime too. Without the cameras, cost/benefit just makes it impossible to enforce some tyrannical edicts, but if we all live in a fishbowl monitored by computers whose machine learning can flag nearly any activity, wow, just think of the possibilities. We don't even need to formally punish these, some interest group will just call up your employers and suggest very strongly that it would embarrass them deeply if they continued to employ you.

tenebrisalietum 2y ago

The statement "By enforcing crimes more consistently, we can actually reduce incarceration" sounds logical and reasonable, but actually isn't necessarily true unless A and B below are also true. A. Actions that are considered crimes do not change over time. B. Incentives to catch and prosecute crimes are not KPIed based on incarceration rates.

rpgwaiter 2y ago

Ya know what also deters crimes? Having your needs met. I bet the money spent towards this spying apparatus could have been spent on housing programs, education, healthcare. Nah, lets give it to a company to make it easier to punish people.

cm2012 2y ago
The evidence for this hypothesis is not great
brokenmachine 2y ago
Panopticon cameras are cheap, and jails are profitable.

mrguyorama 2y ago

Cops have not demonstrated that access to more surveillance actually helps them catch more people. Meanwhile they still keep getting caught on their own bodycams dropping "evidence" like a bag of cocaine (where did the cop get that I wonder....) to screw innocent people over, at least when they aren't doing it with the bodycam off. In fact, despite massive increases to surveillance tech, including cops having the location of anyone's cell phone whenever they want it thanks to private companies that are allowed to sell such data to cops with pretty much no limits, even though the cops themselves are not supposed to have such data, the clearance rate for violent crime is abysmal, 30ish percent. Meanwhile property crime clearance rates are EVEN LOWER, at about 12%. We don't even keep good stats about white collar crime meanwhile... Before we give the cops more toys to harass us with, can we at least make them demonstrate they actually use the tools they have? Right now cops demonstrably do not do their jobs.

perhonen 2y ago

nah i'll take the crime thanks