4 ms·

Do they not get that surveillance doesn't actually make anything safe? It makes it so you can prosecute after the crime has already been committed. It's not lik

Do they not get that surveillance doesn't actually make anything safe? It makes it so you can prosecute after the crime has already been committed. It's not like thieves will go "I was going to rob this 7-11, but damn, they have security cameras inside!" The cameras are there to intimidate. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time.

kspacewalk2 5mo ago
The argument about surveillance isn't whether it helps catch criminals (which obviously prevents some further crime), it obviously does. And yes, security cameras make places harder targets for thieves and robbers and criminals are intimidated by prison time. This seems almost axiomatically so to me, not sure what your argument against this could conceivably be. The argument about surveillance is whether the negative trade-off (lack of privacy) is worth it.
- ianm218 5mo ago
  I responded to OP but he correct that criminals are not overly concerned by amount of prison time but the act of being apprehended itself https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398. Flock is still awful though
  - kspacewalk2 5mo ago
    Well, I'd say security cams and Flock affect the likelihood of apprehending a suspect, not so much the amount of prison time, so the argument still holds - you can't claim they won't have an effect.
ianm218 5mo ago
To steelman the other side of this - you are basically wrong. One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended. If people were basically certain they would be caught their propensity for crime is low. [1]. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time you are right but they are intimidated by getting apprehended. Now I hate the idea of Flock and think we should basically fully ban facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and similar topics. It is just too dangerous if the wrong people get in power. But we should make sure we are making real, fact based arguments. [1]. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398
- trollbridge 5mo ago
  More cameras doesn’t necessarily mean more apprehensions and convictions though.
  - TitaRusell 5mo ago
    Sadly true. Just because the people who stole your phone are caught on camera doesn't mean anyone gives a shit. It still takes policing and a DA bringing the case.
- johnnyanmac 5mo ago
  > One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended. The strongest deterrent for the general populace. Generally speaking, crime rates tend to be pretty low already. So the sample shifts from general populace to those who already commit crimes, or in such an emotional fervor that they gain the capacity for crime. Among that population, I don't think surveillance cameras are stopping much.
  - ianm218 5mo ago
    I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here but the literature is pretty clear that their main concern is how likely they think they will be apprehended and cameras + technology + law enforcement clearly make that more likely.
    - 0xbadcafebee 5mo ago
      I can't read the paper; did it say the criminals think they will be more likely apprehended by cameras and thus choose not to commit crime? Or did it say two separate things (criminals don't want to be apprehended, cameras lead to more apprehension) and linked them logically rather than with direct evidence? Also, how can we know how much crime isn't happening due to cameras? If it's like "we installed a camera at location X and crimes there dropped 72%", that's not taking into account that the criminal just found an easier target, leaving the same amount of net crime.
mckn1ght 5mo ago
> Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time. I’m sure this is true for a subset but is not universal. I imagine just as big a subset or even the majority of criminals simply think they are smart enough to get away with the crime. Assume a perfect world where this system resulted in swift capture and high conversion on charges to convictions to the point where it becomes a pop culture fact that petty crime wouldn’t pay anymore. Does the next generation of criminals still believe they won’t get away with it? Or does the criminal population shrink? Of course people don’t just stop being poor simply because crime is more effectively rooted out, but maybe their efforts would be redirected towards the power structures that allow poverty to continue vs each other, like would be the case if you rob a 7-11 franchise.
pandaman 5mo ago
It works to the point that people used to put up fake cameras when the real surveillance was expensive (CCTV cameras with multichannel VCR type of setup). Also, I am not sure you are aware, but criminals are very constrained during prison time and are limited to committing crimes against other criminals in the prison, leaving citizens alone.

kspacewalk2 5mo ago

The argument about surveillance isn't whether it helps catch criminals (which obviously prevents some further crime), it obviously does. And yes, security cameras make places harder targets for thieves and robbers and criminals are intimidated by prison time. This seems almost axiomatically so to me, not sure what your argument against this could conceivably be. The argument about surveillance is whether the negative trade-off (lack of privacy) is worth it.

ianm218 5mo ago
I responded to OP but he correct that criminals are not overly concerned by amount of prison time but the act of being apprehended itself https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398. Flock is still awful though
- kspacewalk2 5mo ago
  Well, I'd say security cams and Flock affect the likelihood of apprehending a suspect, not so much the amount of prison time, so the argument still holds - you can't claim they won't have an effect.

ianm218 5mo ago

To steelman the other side of this - you are basically wrong. One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended. If people were basically certain they would be caught their propensity for crime is low. [1]. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time you are right but they are intimidated by getting apprehended. Now I hate the idea of Flock and think we should basically fully ban facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and similar topics. It is just too dangerous if the wrong people get in power. But we should make sure we are making real, fact based arguments. [1]. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398

trollbridge 5mo ago
More cameras doesn’t necessarily mean more apprehensions and convictions though.
- TitaRusell 5mo ago
  Sadly true. Just because the people who stole your phone are caught on camera doesn't mean anyone gives a shit. It still takes policing and a DA bringing the case.
johnnyanmac 5mo ago
> One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended. The strongest deterrent for the general populace. Generally speaking, crime rates tend to be pretty low already. So the sample shifts from general populace to those who already commit crimes, or in such an emotional fervor that they gain the capacity for crime. Among that population, I don't think surveillance cameras are stopping much.
- ianm218 5mo ago
  I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here but the literature is pretty clear that their main concern is how likely they think they will be apprehended and cameras + technology + law enforcement clearly make that more likely.
  - 0xbadcafebee 5mo ago
    I can't read the paper; did it say the criminals think they will be more likely apprehended by cameras and thus choose not to commit crime? Or did it say two separate things (criminals don't want to be apprehended, cameras lead to more apprehension) and linked them logically rather than with direct evidence? Also, how can we know how much crime isn't happening due to cameras? If it's like "we installed a camera at location X and crimes there dropped 72%", that's not taking into account that the criminal just found an easier target, leaving the same amount of net crime.

mckn1ght 5mo ago

> Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time. I’m sure this is true for a subset but is not universal. I imagine just as big a subset or even the majority of criminals simply think they are smart enough to get away with the crime. Assume a perfect world where this system resulted in swift capture and high conversion on charges to convictions to the point where it becomes a pop culture fact that petty crime wouldn’t pay anymore. Does the next generation of criminals still believe they won’t get away with it? Or does the criminal population shrink? Of course people don’t just stop being poor simply because crime is more effectively rooted out, but maybe their efforts would be redirected towards the power structures that allow poverty to continue vs each other, like would be the case if you rob a 7-11 franchise.

pandaman 5mo ago

It works to the point that people used to put up fake cameras when the real surveillance was expensive (CCTV cameras with multichannel VCR type of setup). Also, I am not sure you are aware, but criminals are very constrained during prison time and are limited to committing crimes against other criminals in the prison, leaving citizens alone.