2 ms·

A camera does not prevent crime. It never has, anywhere on the planet. Monitoring does prevent crime, and people who look out for cameras aren't worried about t

A camera does not prevent crime. It never has, anywhere on the planet. Monitoring does prevent crime, and people who look out for cameras aren't worried about the camera, they're worried about active monitoring. They're worried that the police will be there moments later. When you planned on breaking into a dozen cars to rummage through them in some vacant lot, the calculus is a lot different when there is a guy watching you. Only everyone knows most of these cameras aren't monitored. The effect of the monitoring concern has dissolved. And it's especially ridiculous to claim that cameras stop gang violence, which comes in ebbs and flows. Which was the "look it stopped all the murders!" There are various other absurd takes throughout this discussion, and HNers should realize that Flock has a massive PR campaign underway, and an enormous number of astroturfers spreading hilariously stupid stories about the gang members intimidated by...a camera.

nomel 2mo ago
> A camera does not prevent crime. No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim. > I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance. Insurers only give discounts if there's tangible risk reduction (they're actually in it only for the money). Cheers!
- llm_nerd 2mo ago
  >No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim LOL, one link observed that crimes dropped from 11...to 7. And again, these are almost certainly monitored cameras, which I *specifically* addressed, and the paper is hilariously worthless noise. I would expect that cameras in a subway system have a security guy sitting in a booth with an array of TVs, which is legitimately concerning to petty criminals. A bunch of worthless recording cameras are not. >I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance A tiny minority of insurers offer discounts in the 2% range if you install unmonitored cameras. This discount is a pat on the head discount, and you clearly know nothing about insurance if you really think that betrays a tangible risk reduction. Christ, insurers don't even care if you have an alarm system unless you have an active monitoring contract. Because again, while the simple thing this is a big deterrent, it actually isn't.

nomel 2mo ago

> A camera does not prevent crime. No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim. > I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance. Insurers only give discounts if there's tangible risk reduction (they're actually in it only for the money). Cheers!

llm_nerd 2mo ago
>No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim LOL, one link observed that crimes dropped from 11...to 7. And again, these are almost certainly monitored cameras, which I *specifically* addressed, and the paper is hilariously worthless noise. I would expect that cameras in a subway system have a security guy sitting in a booth with an array of TVs, which is legitimately concerning to petty criminals. A bunch of worthless recording cameras are not. >I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance A tiny minority of insurers offer discounts in the 2% range if you install unmonitored cameras. This discount is a pat on the head discount, and you clearly know nothing about insurance if you really think that betrays a tangible risk reduction. Christ, insurers don't even care if you have an alarm system unless you have an active monitoring contract. Because again, while the simple thing this is a big deterrent, it actually isn't.