9 ms·

Suppose it depends on what it's used for. We could trust the government to be good, but governments are made from people, elected by people. And people are ofte

Suppose it depends on what it's used for. We could trust the government to be good, but governments are made from people, elected by people. And people are often shitbags to each other. For all the CCTV in London I've been mugged twice and nothing was captured on CCTV nor were the police all that interested in doing anything about it. As an outsider living here I think the UK has huge social problems that are neglected in favour of retaining classism. America has the same problems but at least it's more "ah, what can ya do about it huh" rather than "we are a perfect polite society British values bla bla".

runsWphotons 1y ago
I commented about this on another thread, and probably most around here disagree with my general point there, but this fact amazes me. We have gotten all this tech creating a surveillance state but then it isn't even used to give better policing. You will just get mugged on camera by someone with ten prior charges and then be ignored by police.
- krapp 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - xnorswap 1y ago
    That's not true whatsoever for the UK, the police barely respond to shoplifting.
  - incone123 1y ago
    Not in Britain there isn't. We have constant retail theft and violence against staff and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley asking the public to do the crime fighting https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/25365950.thames-valley-police-commissioner-said-challenge-thieves/ https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/25365950.thames-valley-...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- ryandrake 1y ago
  All the recent policy, technical leaps, and innovation around policing seem to be focused on cracking down on protesting and speech, and not really on what people would consider "fighting crime". You could get mugged on the street corner in broad daylight (or worse) and the police won't even answer your phone call, but the minute you show up on that street corner with 10 friends carrying signs and shouting, 20 officers will show up in riot gear, and every one of you will be identified using technology.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does. Always been that way, always will be. It's just a little harder to bury your head in the sand than it used to be.
    - breppp 1y ago
      the purpose of circular logic is circular logic
    - chongli 1y ago
      The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does. Nope. That's an ideology, not a statement of fact. It completely negates the possibility that systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose.
      - uoaei 1y ago
        Nope. That's an imposition of metaphysics onto what is solely clearly mere empiricism.
      - arrowsmith 1y ago
        "systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose" Er, that's exactly what "the purpose of a system is what it does" means.
- codedokode 1y ago
  The surveillance is there not to catch small thieves, but those who are against the government, against wars etc. A small thief doesn't threaten the regime in any way so he can be dealt with after more dangerous people are dealt with.
  - aaronbaugher 1y ago
    In fact, the petty criminal may benefit the regime, if his crimes damage those the regime sees as a greater threat to itself and its goals.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      The petty thief causes the useful idiots to clamor for more dragnet.
andrepd 1y ago
CCTV can absolutely be made to be effective and protect citizen's privacy at the same time. A legal requirement to store only encrypted data, which can only be decrypted via a court warrant (so a similar standard to searching your home or tapping your phones, not the blanket panopticon they wish to create), plus enforcement and heavy fines + prison time for anyone caught storing unencrypted data. You need political will for this and for enforcement to take it seriously, since the technology to do so is almost trivial nowadays.
- spurgu 1y ago
  And so it's just a bill away from the data is suddenly being available for any purpose. For public safety of course. The same people who want Chat Control to scan our messages for sure want to scan and raise alarms for suspicious behaviors in public places too. They just can't implement it all at once or there'd be an uproar. But if it happens slowly like this, bit by bit... frogs getting boiled in the UK (and elsewhere too).
- varispeed 1y ago
  This is the kind of techno-utopian fantasy that keeps authoritarianism looking respectable. “Just encrypt it and only decrypt with a warrant” sounds lovely on paper, but in practice you’ve still built the infrastructure for a 24/7 panopticon - you’ve just wrapped it in a legal fig leaf. Governments break their own rules all the time, warrants get rubber-stamped, and “heavy fines + prison time” magically evaporate when the offenders are the state or its contractors. The technology isn’t the hard part - it’s the fact you can’t meaningfully enforce limits on a system whose entire purpose is to watch everyone, all the time. You don’t make mass surveillance safe by adding a padlock. You stop it by not building it.
  - gg82 1y ago
    Because if you build it, they will come and use it for any purpose they can think of in the end!
- codedokode 1y ago
  If you trust that the law works then the data is protected by it and there is no need for encryption. But it seems that you don't trust. Aren't you planning something illegal by chance?
Xelbair 1y ago
> We could trust the government to be good no. you cannot. ever. even if you have perfect faith in current government, you're one election away from something different. CCTV is also extremely ineffective in crime prevention in general, and actually catching criminals - one of few studies(back when i did write my thesis on subject related to it) used different areas of UK to measure crime fighting capability and effect of CCTV - by finding similar areas with and without CCTV and comparing crime statistics. they only worked on parking lots, there was no measurable differences in plazas, alleys, roads, highstreets etc. and a bit of anecdotal evidence - once cameras at my older workplace caught robbery to a place next door. With criminal looking directly at the camera, before bashing the window with a brick, jumping in, and hopping out with accomplice. They never got caught. This was quite decent camera, with face clearly visible - i know this because we directly cooperated with police.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Even if you have a "good" government that goodness will make it a target for those who seek to co-opt it as a means to their desired end, and their desired ends are never good because if they were they would pursue cheaper less circuitous paths to them.
- protocolture 1y ago
  The 2 best surveillance methods for crime investigation are LPR Cameras and cashless public transport. Both of them then rely on the next step after providing information, following the people who triggered the first layer with CCTV. If I went into my local CBD right now, and comitted some badass crime. explode a cop car or something we all yearn to do. All the exits are covered. I wont get anywhere walking and covering my face. I can get on a train but the rozzers will know where I get off. Likewise, if I jump in a car, they can track it almost anywhere for the next 100 kilometers. I dont think the goal is prevention, its the guaranteed catch. Its the body of evidence that starts piling up when you burn cop car 1. When brisbane introduced the go card system, we had our first arrest based on go card travel data within a month. Sad really. >bit of anecdotal evidence - once cameras at my older workplace caught robbery to a place next door. With criminal looking directly at the camera, before bashing the window with a brick, jumping in, and hopping out with accomplice. They never got caught. This was quite decent camera, with face clearly visible - i know this because we directly cooperated with police. I helped an employer comply like this once. Someone had been brutally killed by a driver. The victim only existed for like 3 frames on the recording. But the cop wasnt interested in that anyway. They had managed to sneak drugs out of their car, into their pocket and then hide them in our garden, mid arrest. Embarrasing for the cop you see. The cop already had the driver on vehicular manslaughter, but thanks to the power of CCTV, they could also add a charge for drug crimes.
dathinab 1y ago
This is how Germany ended up with a ton of organized crime. The organized crime organizations just mostly focus on crime which mainly hurts immigrants and people racist police personal might not see as German even if they have a passport, and also mostly only crime which isn't publicly visible. In turn a mixture of corrupt and racist police/politicians and having other more visible problems lead to there not being any large scale actions against them hence why they could grow to quite large size.
rs186 1y ago
That's exactly China's line. They say it helps catch criminals. And to their credit, it does, but at the expense of dissidents and activists.

runsWphotons 1y ago

I commented about this on another thread, and probably most around here disagree with my general point there, but this fact amazes me. We have gotten all this tech creating a surveillance state but then it isn't even used to give better policing. You will just get mugged on camera by someone with ten prior charges and then be ignored by police.

krapp 1y ago
[flagged]
- xnorswap 1y ago
  That's not true whatsoever for the UK, the police barely respond to shoplifting.
- incone123 1y ago
  Not in Britain there isn't. We have constant retail theft and violence against staff and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley asking the public to do the crime fighting https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/25365950.thames-valley-police-commissioner-said-challenge-thieves/ https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/25365950.thames-valley-...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ryandrake 1y ago
All the recent policy, technical leaps, and innovation around policing seem to be focused on cracking down on protesting and speech, and not really on what people would consider "fighting crime". You could get mugged on the street corner in broad daylight (or worse) and the police won't even answer your phone call, but the minute you show up on that street corner with 10 friends carrying signs and shouting, 20 officers will show up in riot gear, and every one of you will be identified using technology.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does. Always been that way, always will be. It's just a little harder to bury your head in the sand than it used to be.
  - breppp 1y ago
    the purpose of circular logic is circular logic
  - chongli 1y ago
    The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does. Nope. That's an ideology, not a statement of fact. It completely negates the possibility that systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose.
    - uoaei 1y ago
      Nope. That's an imposition of metaphysics onto what is solely clearly mere empiricism.
    - arrowsmith 1y ago
      "systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose" Er, that's exactly what "the purpose of a system is what it does" means.
codedokode 1y ago
The surveillance is there not to catch small thieves, but those who are against the government, against wars etc. A small thief doesn't threaten the regime in any way so he can be dealt with after more dangerous people are dealt with.
- aaronbaugher 1y ago
  In fact, the petty criminal may benefit the regime, if his crimes damage those the regime sees as a greater threat to itself and its goals.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    The petty thief causes the useful idiots to clamor for more dragnet.

andrepd 1y ago

CCTV can absolutely be made to be effective and protect citizen's privacy at the same time. A legal requirement to store only encrypted data, which can only be decrypted via a court warrant (so a similar standard to searching your home or tapping your phones, not the blanket panopticon they wish to create), plus enforcement and heavy fines + prison time for anyone caught storing unencrypted data. You need political will for this and for enforcement to take it seriously, since the technology to do so is almost trivial nowadays.

spurgu 1y ago
And so it's just a bill away from the data is suddenly being available for any purpose. For public safety of course. The same people who want Chat Control to scan our messages for sure want to scan and raise alarms for suspicious behaviors in public places too. They just can't implement it all at once or there'd be an uproar. But if it happens slowly like this, bit by bit... frogs getting boiled in the UK (and elsewhere too).
varispeed 1y ago
This is the kind of techno-utopian fantasy that keeps authoritarianism looking respectable. “Just encrypt it and only decrypt with a warrant” sounds lovely on paper, but in practice you’ve still built the infrastructure for a 24/7 panopticon - you’ve just wrapped it in a legal fig leaf. Governments break their own rules all the time, warrants get rubber-stamped, and “heavy fines + prison time” magically evaporate when the offenders are the state or its contractors. The technology isn’t the hard part - it’s the fact you can’t meaningfully enforce limits on a system whose entire purpose is to watch everyone, all the time. You don’t make mass surveillance safe by adding a padlock. You stop it by not building it.
- gg82 1y ago
  Because if you build it, they will come and use it for any purpose they can think of in the end!
codedokode 1y ago
If you trust that the law works then the data is protected by it and there is no need for encryption. But it seems that you don't trust. Aren't you planning something illegal by chance?

Xelbair 1y ago

> We could trust the government to be good no. you cannot. ever. even if you have perfect faith in current government, you're one election away from something different. CCTV is also extremely ineffective in crime prevention in general, and actually catching criminals - one of few studies(back when i did write my thesis on subject related to it) used different areas of UK to measure crime fighting capability and effect of CCTV - by finding similar areas with and without CCTV and comparing crime statistics. they only worked on parking lots, there was no measurable differences in plazas, alleys, roads, highstreets etc. and a bit of anecdotal evidence - once cameras at my older workplace caught robbery to a place next door. With criminal looking directly at the camera, before bashing the window with a brick, jumping in, and hopping out with accomplice. They never got caught. This was quite decent camera, with face clearly visible - i know this because we directly cooperated with police.

potato3732842 1y ago
Even if you have a "good" government that goodness will make it a target for those who seek to co-opt it as a means to their desired end, and their desired ends are never good because if they were they would pursue cheaper less circuitous paths to them.
protocolture 1y ago
The 2 best surveillance methods for crime investigation are LPR Cameras and cashless public transport. Both of them then rely on the next step after providing information, following the people who triggered the first layer with CCTV. If I went into my local CBD right now, and comitted some badass crime. explode a cop car or something we all yearn to do. All the exits are covered. I wont get anywhere walking and covering my face. I can get on a train but the rozzers will know where I get off. Likewise, if I jump in a car, they can track it almost anywhere for the next 100 kilometers. I dont think the goal is prevention, its the guaranteed catch. Its the body of evidence that starts piling up when you burn cop car 1. When brisbane introduced the go card system, we had our first arrest based on go card travel data within a month. Sad really. >bit of anecdotal evidence - once cameras at my older workplace caught robbery to a place next door. With criminal looking directly at the camera, before bashing the window with a brick, jumping in, and hopping out with accomplice. They never got caught. This was quite decent camera, with face clearly visible - i know this because we directly cooperated with police. I helped an employer comply like this once. Someone had been brutally killed by a driver. The victim only existed for like 3 frames on the recording. But the cop wasnt interested in that anyway. They had managed to sneak drugs out of their car, into their pocket and then hide them in our garden, mid arrest. Embarrasing for the cop you see. The cop already had the driver on vehicular manslaughter, but thanks to the power of CCTV, they could also add a charge for drug crimes.

dathinab 1y ago

This is how Germany ended up with a ton of organized crime. The organized crime organizations just mostly focus on crime which mainly hurts immigrants and people racist police personal might not see as German even if they have a passport, and also mostly only crime which isn't publicly visible. In turn a mixture of corrupt and racist police/politicians and having other more visible problems lead to there not being any large scale actions against them hence why they could grow to quite large size.

rs186 1y ago

That's exactly China's line. They say it helps catch criminals. And to their credit, it does, but at the expense of dissidents and activists.