3 ms·

Any evidence that the reduction is actually due to the cameras?

by BoggleOhYeah 6mo ago

esbranson 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  There is very solid evidence it wasn't the cameras. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ has a chart of the car breakins. It shows the drop starting in September of 2023. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/department-bulletins-notices/24-052 https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart... > Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco. This rollout is expected to take place over the next 90 days. In other words, the cameras were added where I've annotated the chart with a black rectangle here: https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0 https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0 To my knowledge, Flock doesn't have a time machine offering.
  - esbranson 6mo ago
    A crime drop between over that 3 months is not, as evidenced by the subsequent rise for 3 months after, of the time period you claim as evidence.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      The drop starting a year before the cameras is evidence that the drop is not explicable via the cameras.
- xracy 6mo ago
  Sorry, this is russell's teapot falacy. "the burden of proof lies with the person making an unfalsifiable claim, rather than on others to disprove it" If there is evidence this is related to cameras, then the onus is on companies making these cameras and claims to provide the data. Not on others to prove that they don't stop crime. There's a reason you always start with the null hypothesis.
toephu2 6mo ago
Don't people tend to behave if they know the are being watched?
- jmye 6mo ago
  I thought he asked for evidence?
- chaps 6mo ago
  yes, people tend to act differently. not the people they're trying to afect, just random people just minding their business. but it is not an effective deterrent to things like "violent crime". • Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime. • Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/asset_upload...

Any evidence that the reduction is actually due to the cameras?

esbranson 6mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 6mo ago
There is very solid evidence it wasn't the cameras. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ has a chart of the car breakins. It shows the drop starting in September of 2023. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/department-bulletins-notices/24-052 https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart... > Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco. This rollout is expected to take place over the next 90 days. In other words, the cameras were added where I've annotated the chart with a black rectangle here: https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0 https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0 To my knowledge, Flock doesn't have a time machine offering.
- esbranson 6mo ago
  A crime drop between over that 3 months is not, as evidenced by the subsequent rise for 3 months after, of the time period you claim as evidence.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    The drop starting a year before the cameras is evidence that the drop is not explicable via the cameras.
xracy 6mo ago
Sorry, this is russell's teapot falacy. "the burden of proof lies with the person making an unfalsifiable claim, rather than on others to disprove it" If there is evidence this is related to cameras, then the onus is on companies making these cameras and claims to provide the data. Not on others to prove that they don't stop crime. There's a reason you always start with the null hypothesis.

toephu2 6mo ago

Don't people tend to behave if they know the are being watched?

jmye 6mo ago
I thought he asked for evidence?
chaps 6mo ago
yes, people tend to act differently. not the people they're trying to afect, just random people just minding their business. but it is not an effective deterrent to things like "violent crime". • Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime. • Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/asset_upload...