3 ms·

That has always been the question. Are you willing to be constantly surveilled for marginally more security?

thewebguyd 9mo ago
Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety. The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent. Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.
- toephu2 9mo ago
  There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission. > No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)
  - yibg 9mo ago
    South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space. EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.
  - dyauspitr 9mo ago
    Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.
  - 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
    > This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced Just before this, you said it was because of CCTV. Is it the CCTV or the strict laws and enforcement? India and South Africa are democratic countries with large CCTV programs and high crime rates.
    - dyauspitr 9mo ago
      India has a very low crime rate. The homicide rate is 2 in 100,000. Murder/homicide is basically unheard of in major cities. For instance Mumbai has a homicide rate of 0.7 in 100,000 making it one of the safest cities in the world. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/crime-in-india-s-largest-cities-an-analysis https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/crime-in-india-s-larg... https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_in_most_populous_city.xls https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics... What are your sources?
      - 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
        The source is World Population Review. The US was used as an example of a country with higher crime that needed more CCTV to be safer. The US and India are almost identical in this ranking of crime. [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rat...
toephu2 9mo ago
If it leads to a high-trust society, yes. (e.g., see Singapore)
- dyauspitr 9mo ago
  Surveillance and a high trust society are diametrically opposed concepts. You don’t need a high trust society if you have total surveillance and vice versa.
- zanecodes 9mo ago
  I'm pretty sure that if you need ubiquitous surveillance to ensure that your citizens don't commit crimes, you don't have a high-trust society, by definition.
- izacus 9mo ago
  I don't think you understand what "high trust" means. High trust societies have no need for surveillance which is what makes them high trust.
antonvs 9mo ago
Also, banning guns would do even more good. Strange that the people in favor of Flock cameras to reduce crime tend not to be in favor of banning guns to reduce crime.
- toephu2 9mo ago
  Banning guns does nothing without removal of guns or enforcement of laws. Assault weapons are "banned" in California, has it stopped anyone from getting their hands on them? Extended magazines are "banned" in California, has it stopped any criminals from getting them? Almost every other day a criminal is caught w/ extended magazines found on them. A concealed carry permit is notoriously hard to get in California, and yet criminals still walk around with guns concealed without a CCW permit every day in California. Banning guns isn't going to solve anything.
  - dyauspitr 9mo ago
    You have to ban them everywhere in the US. You can’t have them available one state over and expect a ban to do anything. It works really well, even criminals in the UK use knives for their crimes. Same with most of the rest of the world. You’re right there needs to be a removal too because we already own dozens of guns per American.

Me, absolutely not. Unfortunately, my opinion seems to be increasingly in the minority and more and more people will happily be surveilled for even just an illusory promise of safety. The harsh truth is that safety/security can never be guaranteed. No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. Surveillance might help catching the criminal to face justice afterwards, but it will never 100% prevent. Because of that, and because of the potential for abuse, it is better to not be under constant surveillance than it is to give up your rights and privacy for no guarantees.

toephu2 9mo ago
There is no expectation of privacy in the public setting though. Anyone can record you in public without your permission. > No amount of surveillance will 100% prevent any individual from being a victim of a crime. No, but if it reduces crime by 99% would you be in favor of it? (See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.. examples of democratic countries with CCTVs all over the public space.. and before you say well those are racially homogenous countries.. I say look at Singapore. Singapore is very diverse racially, and yet they have very low rates of crime. This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced)
- yibg 9mo ago
  South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space. EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.
- dyauspitr 9mo ago
  Singapore is very diverse racially… with groups that aren’t generally known to be very criminal. It’s mostly a mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians. I doubt the CCTVs have much to do with it.
- 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
  > This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced Just before this, you said it was because of CCTV. Is it the CCTV or the strict laws and enforcement? India and South Africa are democratic countries with large CCTV programs and high crime rates.
  - dyauspitr 9mo ago
    India has a very low crime rate. The homicide rate is 2 in 100,000. Murder/homicide is basically unheard of in major cities. For instance Mumbai has a homicide rate of 0.7 in 100,000 making it one of the safest cities in the world. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/crime-in-india-s-largest-cities-an-analysis https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/crime-in-india-s-larg... https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_in_most_populous_city.xls https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics... What are your sources?
    - 5upplied_demand 9mo ago
      The source is World Population Review. The US was used as an example of a country with higher crime that needed more CCTV to be safer. The US and India are almost identical in this ranking of crime. [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rat...

toephu2 9mo ago

If it leads to a high-trust society, yes. (e.g., see Singapore)

dyauspitr 9mo ago
Surveillance and a high trust society are diametrically opposed concepts. You don’t need a high trust society if you have total surveillance and vice versa.
zanecodes 9mo ago
I'm pretty sure that if you need ubiquitous surveillance to ensure that your citizens don't commit crimes, you don't have a high-trust society, by definition.
izacus 9mo ago
I don't think you understand what "high trust" means. High trust societies have no need for surveillance which is what makes them high trust.

antonvs 9mo ago

Also, banning guns would do even more good. Strange that the people in favor of Flock cameras to reduce crime tend not to be in favor of banning guns to reduce crime.

toephu2 9mo ago
Banning guns does nothing without removal of guns or enforcement of laws. Assault weapons are "banned" in California, has it stopped anyone from getting their hands on them? Extended magazines are "banned" in California, has it stopped any criminals from getting them? Almost every other day a criminal is caught w/ extended magazines found on them. A concealed carry permit is notoriously hard to get in California, and yet criminals still walk around with guns concealed without a CCW permit every day in California. Banning guns isn't going to solve anything.
- dyauspitr 9mo ago
  You have to ban them everywhere in the US. You can’t have them available one state over and expect a ban to do anything. It works really well, even criminals in the UK use knives for their crimes. Same with most of the rest of the world. You’re right there needs to be a removal too because we already own dozens of guns per American.