5 ms·

It’s not keeping them safe: it’s recording in order to facilitate an investigation if someone harms them. That might serve a deterrent effect, but given how mu

It’s not keeping them safe: it’s recording in order to facilitate an investigation if someone harms them. That might serve a deterrent effect, but given how much crime is a result of poor impulse control, it may not have as strong an effect as one might like.

NBJack 2y ago
Let's not forget unless this is constantly uploading, hostile folks will be even more inclined to attempt assault to 'remove evidence' from the employee.
- r00fus 2y ago
  This sounds incredibly risky - given other employees may be nearby and the stores already have fixed cameras everywhere. After the first year or two of such incidents spiking it'll go down quickly. note: I really don't like the idea of a panopticon
gjsman-1000 2y ago
> may not have as strong an effect as one might like You’re forgetting how much crime is motivated by “merciful” judges afraid to give long sentences to people who are incapable of functioning in society. All you have to do is look at El Salvador for the ultimate proof study. According to CNN, murders fell by 97.7%. The western academic whines about the innocent; but NGOs invited to oversee the project have yet to make a single convincing innocence story. There’s also the issue that crime is fundamentally, at its very root, a punishment of the innocent. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the harmless.
- I-M-S 2y ago
  El Salvador's case is not as clear cut as it might seem - see #3 at https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-prison https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comment...
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    That’s probably one of the least convincing and anecdotal things I’ve read online. I’m going to remember this for years.
    - elil17 2y ago
      Not saying ACX is a reliable source, but you can totally see the trend they are talking about in publicly available data. Murders had already fallen a lot by the time the imprisonment campaign started.
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        A. Is that possibly called deterrence? B. “Fallen a lot” isn’t the same as “Murder rate lower than Canada.” C. Your bias is by pointing out how much it has fallen since 2015. This is however an outlier bias - in 2015, El Salvador was the world’s most dangerous country. #1 for murders, by over 30% more than #2. The pre-mass-incarceration rate, though lower, would still be considered dangerous anywhere else. Going from “world’s most dangerous country” to “just a dangerous country” isn’t a victory, and it does not follow that following this, the country would naturally transition to “safe country.”
- elil17 2y ago
  I’m far from an expert on this - but doesn’t it seem like they are just locking up all the people inclined to commit murder, not actually deterring people for the most part? It still seems consistent with the idea that crime is mostly impulse-based and hard to deter. Additionally, wouldn’t less serious crimes (like shoplifting) be even harder to deter than murder, since they are even more likely to be committed impulsively?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    The two are not incompatible. You can lock up the people most likely to murder; before you solve all possible society causes and build perfect deterrence. I do know though, that your ability to build deterrence, or fix societal causes, will be heavily impaired to the point of impossibility if you don’t fix the marauder problem first. Deterrence is a preventative measure like brushing your teeth - but you can't brush your teeth later out of gingivitis after-the-fact. It’s like saying fixing corrupt nations need democracy. Maybe - but if the people are starving, that’s the first problem needing fixing, or the attempt at democratic reforms will certainly fail.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  That's kinda wild if the NGOs haven't been able to find a single innocently convicted. El Salvador has jailed 8% of young men, many of which based on nothing more than anonymous tips.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    NGO's have no authority. The Salvadorian government has to let them in and allow them to do the work. If they say 'fuck off' there isn't much to be done -- and that's what happened.
pfdietz 2y ago
Or, it really is there to inhibit theft by employees, and safety is just the public rationalization.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  That's another benefit of the system from the perspective of Walmart higher ups. No doubt.
dh2022 2y ago
The stores already hav3 cameras to provide evidence required for an investigation. Why would Walmart require additional evidence?
- Volundr 2y ago
  Because cameras have blind spots.
  - joeyagreco 2y ago
    Assuming this is the reason, it seems much less trivial to install more/better cameras in a store than to coordinate this effort.
    - Volundr 2y ago
      I think you'd be surprised how hard it is to cover 100% of a store floor. As another commenter pointed out, even if you can angle matters. Getting a shot of the top of someone's head is a let less helpful than getting a good angle of their face.
  - LinuxBender 2y ago
    And it gives more context to law enforcement when they can see faces, body language and hear words rather than hearsay.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> It’s not keeping them safe: it’s recording in order to facilitate an investigation if someone harms them. It's getting them used to wearing them on a pretext of being about monitoring customers, to ease them into a shift to an always-on policy which will be promoted as a simplification that will reduce the risk of forgetting or turning them on too late, but which will also allow them to be complete records of the employee’s behavior, which is almost certainly the real target.
- SteveNuts 2y ago
  I wonder how hard it would be for the microphone to listen for the word "union" and send an alert to Walmart Corporate?
  - RajT88 2y ago
    Trivial.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  real life implementation of Marshall Brain's Manna

NBJack 2y ago

Let's not forget unless this is constantly uploading, hostile folks will be even more inclined to attempt assault to 'remove evidence' from the employee.

r00fus 2y ago
This sounds incredibly risky - given other employees may be nearby and the stores already have fixed cameras everywhere. After the first year or two of such incidents spiking it'll go down quickly. note: I really don't like the idea of a panopticon

gjsman-1000 2y ago

> may not have as strong an effect as one might like You’re forgetting how much crime is motivated by “merciful” judges afraid to give long sentences to people who are incapable of functioning in society. All you have to do is look at El Salvador for the ultimate proof study. According to CNN, murders fell by 97.7%. The western academic whines about the innocent; but NGOs invited to oversee the project have yet to make a single convincing innocence story. There’s also the issue that crime is fundamentally, at its very root, a punishment of the innocent. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the harmless.

I-M-S 2y ago
El Salvador's case is not as clear cut as it might seem - see #3 at https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-prison https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comment...
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  That’s probably one of the least convincing and anecdotal things I’ve read online. I’m going to remember this for years.
  - elil17 2y ago
    Not saying ACX is a reliable source, but you can totally see the trend they are talking about in publicly available data. Murders had already fallen a lot by the time the imprisonment campaign started.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      A. Is that possibly called deterrence? B. “Fallen a lot” isn’t the same as “Murder rate lower than Canada.” C. Your bias is by pointing out how much it has fallen since 2015. This is however an outlier bias - in 2015, El Salvador was the world’s most dangerous country. #1 for murders, by over 30% more than #2. The pre-mass-incarceration rate, though lower, would still be considered dangerous anywhere else. Going from “world’s most dangerous country” to “just a dangerous country” isn’t a victory, and it does not follow that following this, the country would naturally transition to “safe country.”
elil17 2y ago
I’m far from an expert on this - but doesn’t it seem like they are just locking up all the people inclined to commit murder, not actually deterring people for the most part? It still seems consistent with the idea that crime is mostly impulse-based and hard to deter. Additionally, wouldn’t less serious crimes (like shoplifting) be even harder to deter than murder, since they are even more likely to be committed impulsively?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  The two are not incompatible. You can lock up the people most likely to murder; before you solve all possible society causes and build perfect deterrence. I do know though, that your ability to build deterrence, or fix societal causes, will be heavily impaired to the point of impossibility if you don’t fix the marauder problem first. Deterrence is a preventative measure like brushing your teeth - but you can't brush your teeth later out of gingivitis after-the-fact. It’s like saying fixing corrupt nations need democracy. Maybe - but if the people are starving, that’s the first problem needing fixing, or the attempt at democratic reforms will certainly fail.
mrweasel 2y ago
That's kinda wild if the NGOs haven't been able to find a single innocently convicted. El Salvador has jailed 8% of young men, many of which based on nothing more than anonymous tips.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  NGO's have no authority. The Salvadorian government has to let them in and allow them to do the work. If they say 'fuck off' there isn't much to be done -- and that's what happened.

pfdietz 2y ago

Or, it really is there to inhibit theft by employees, and safety is just the public rationalization.

bilbo0s 2y ago
That's another benefit of the system from the perspective of Walmart higher ups. No doubt.

dh2022 2y ago

The stores already hav3 cameras to provide evidence required for an investigation. Why would Walmart require additional evidence?

Volundr 2y ago
Because cameras have blind spots.
- joeyagreco 2y ago
  Assuming this is the reason, it seems much less trivial to install more/better cameras in a store than to coordinate this effort.
  - Volundr 2y ago
    I think you'd be surprised how hard it is to cover 100% of a store floor. As another commenter pointed out, even if you can angle matters. Getting a shot of the top of someone's head is a let less helpful than getting a good angle of their face.
- LinuxBender 2y ago
  And it gives more context to law enforcement when they can see faces, body language and hear words rather than hearsay.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> It’s not keeping them safe: it’s recording in order to facilitate an investigation if someone harms them. It's getting them used to wearing them on a pretext of being about monitoring customers, to ease them into a shift to an always-on policy which will be promoted as a simplification that will reduce the risk of forgetting or turning them on too late, but which will also allow them to be complete records of the employee’s behavior, which is almost certainly the real target.

SteveNuts 2y ago
I wonder how hard it would be for the microphone to listen for the word "union" and send an alert to Walmart Corporate?
- RajT88 2y ago
  Trivial.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
real life implementation of Marshall Brain's Manna