5 ms·

What if lots of murders happened in bathrooms?

Manuel_D 4mo ago
The hopefully we'll be able to at least narrow down the list of suspects to the people who entered the bathroom around the time they the murder took place. Surveillance often doesn't directly capture crime on camera, but is rather used to identify who traveled to and from the crime scene around the time of the incident
- etchalon 4mo ago
  You understand why that's worse, right?
  - Manuel_D 4mo ago
    No? If someone broke into your car as stole your luggage, the surveillance camera might not directly capture the thief breaking into your car. But if the camera recorded someone entering the parking garage and then exiting the garage carrying your luggage a few minutes later, that's strong evidence is it not?
    - etchalon 4mo ago
      You're missing the part where, for that to work, we have a government with access to a massive surveillance system capable of identifying and tracking the population at scale. And you're missing that, instead of specifically identifying a specific individual doing a specific thing, this network would be used to place under suspicion, investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, coming and going from protests. Or libraries. Or voting.
      - Manuel_D 4mo ago
        > investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." In the example above, the police wouldn't arrest every single person who entered and exited the parking lot. They'd arrest the person who walked out of the lot with your stolen luggage. > Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, coming and going from protests Again realize that this is legal right? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxin... There's no right to have your public demonstrations off limits for recording. The whole point of a protest is to be seen. If someone is concerned that they will be associated with some group or cause because of their decision to protest, then they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a protest is. > Or voting You realize the government already has that information? Voters literally filled out ballots and delivered it to the government. They don't need a camera to know who voted, they have the ballots.
        etchalon 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        Manuel_D 4mo ago
        Yes, ballots are anonymous. But how would Flock cameras somehow de-anonymize votes? I had assumed you were referring to tracking people driving to polling stations to discover who voted - not how they voted. Because how on earth would automated license plate readers somehow de-anonymize individual ballots? Please do explain what you meant by that. And do explain the "idiocy" of the rest of my comment. Do you actually dispute anything I wrote? Do you think that law enforcement weren't monitoring groups like the Proud Boys, Nation of Islam, militia organizations, etc. before Flock came around?
        Ancapistani 4mo ago
        Well, in my precinct I'd estimate there are ~20 people at the polls to vote at any given time. Given the timestamp of a ballot, there are maybe 50 people it could have possibly been. That's more than enough information to correlate voting behavior after a couple of election cycles with a high degree of confidence. Oh, and ballots aren't just for one race generally. By looking at what races that ballot voted in and a list of people present, there's a very good chance you'd be able to narrow it down to an individual in a single visit.
glitchc 4mo ago
We create doors that physically limit access to one person at a time.
stickfigure 4mo ago
> What if lots of murders happened in bathrooms? Then we would start putting cameras in bathrooms? Or start closing public bathrooms? Nobody wants to go into a bathroom and get murdered. We as a society are not going to just accept a high bathroom murder rate. Culture will adapt to reality, one way or another.
- chmod775 4mo ago
  You know what... go ahead and build your panopticon somewhere. The rest of us are going to have an actual society somewhere else, the way it has worked for thousands of years. If you're so scared of your own shadow you'd tie a noose around your own neck and hand the other end to those in power in exchange for an illusion of safety, I won't stand in your way. Build that cage around yourself and hope the jailer will be benevolent. Just don't drag others down with you. Some of us have decided to learn from history.
  - stickfigure 4mo ago
    You asked a 'what if' question, I gave you a reasonable answer. What solution would you propose for a hypothetical high bathroom murder rate?

The hopefully we'll be able to at least narrow down the list of suspects to the people who entered the bathroom around the time they the murder took place. Surveillance often doesn't directly capture crime on camera, but is rather used to identify who traveled to and from the crime scene around the time of the incident

etchalon 4mo ago
You understand why that's worse, right?
- Manuel_D 4mo ago
  No? If someone broke into your car as stole your luggage, the surveillance camera might not directly capture the thief breaking into your car. But if the camera recorded someone entering the parking garage and then exiting the garage carrying your luggage a few minutes later, that's strong evidence is it not?
  - etchalon 4mo ago
    You're missing the part where, for that to work, we have a government with access to a massive surveillance system capable of identifying and tracking the population at scale. And you're missing that, instead of specifically identifying a specific individual doing a specific thing, this network would be used to place under suspicion, investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, coming and going from protests. Or libraries. Or voting.
    - Manuel_D 4mo ago
      > investigation and possible arrest, people who's only documented action was "being somewhere." In the example above, the police wouldn't arrest every single person who entered and exited the parking lot. They'd arrest the person who walked out of the lot with your stolen luggage. > Oh, and while your example is "committed a crime", that same network could easily be used to identity and track people who were, say, coming and going from protests Again realize that this is legal right? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxin... There's no right to have your public demonstrations off limits for recording. The whole point of a protest is to be seen. If someone is concerned that they will be associated with some group or cause because of their decision to protest, then they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a protest is. > Or voting You realize the government already has that information? Voters literally filled out ballots and delivered it to the government. They don't need a camera to know who voted, they have the ballots.
      - etchalon 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        Manuel_D 4mo ago
        Yes, ballots are anonymous. But how would Flock cameras somehow de-anonymize votes? I had assumed you were referring to tracking people driving to polling stations to discover who voted - not how they voted. Because how on earth would automated license plate readers somehow de-anonymize individual ballots? Please do explain what you meant by that. And do explain the "idiocy" of the rest of my comment. Do you actually dispute anything I wrote? Do you think that law enforcement weren't monitoring groups like the Proud Boys, Nation of Islam, militia organizations, etc. before Flock came around?
        Ancapistani 4mo ago
        Well, in my precinct I'd estimate there are ~20 people at the polls to vote at any given time. Given the timestamp of a ballot, there are maybe 50 people it could have possibly been. That's more than enough information to correlate voting behavior after a couple of election cycles with a high degree of confidence. Oh, and ballots aren't just for one race generally. By looking at what races that ballot voted in and a list of people present, there's a very good chance you'd be able to narrow it down to an individual in a single visit.

glitchc 4mo ago

We create doors that physically limit access to one person at a time.

stickfigure 4mo ago

> What if lots of murders happened in bathrooms? Then we would start putting cameras in bathrooms? Or start closing public bathrooms? Nobody wants to go into a bathroom and get murdered. We as a society are not going to just accept a high bathroom murder rate. Culture will adapt to reality, one way or another.

chmod775 4mo ago
You know what... go ahead and build your panopticon somewhere. The rest of us are going to have an actual society somewhere else, the way it has worked for thousands of years. If you're so scared of your own shadow you'd tie a noose around your own neck and hand the other end to those in power in exchange for an illusion of safety, I won't stand in your way. Build that cage around yourself and hope the jailer will be benevolent. Just don't drag others down with you. Some of us have decided to learn from history.
- stickfigure 4mo ago
  You asked a 'what if' question, I gave you a reasonable answer. What solution would you propose for a hypothetical high bathroom murder rate?