3 ms·

In an attempt to help you find out where you stand on the issue (that is, I don't expect a response): 80% of sexual abuse of minors happens within existing soc

by pgeorgi 12y ago

In an attempt to help you find out where you stand on the issue (that is, I don't expect a response): 80% of sexual abuse of minors happens within existing social contexts, that is "family and friends". It would be useful to place cameras in every single private room and have them be automatically monitored and the live feed passed to some on-staff LEO when software considers anything suspect. Are you at peace with that? If so, why? If not, why not? (Yes, it's an extreme example. Both in terms of privacy intrusion and in the potential of helping law enforcement with a 'worthy cause'. It's why I think this example is particularly helpful to consider one's position)

rimantas 12y ago
This is not an extreme example. What is extreme is looking at the world from the law enforcement perspective. Why not just lock everybody in the prison already, perfect conditions for surveillance and control.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  It is an extreme example in that everything more intense (at least of the scenarios that I can come up with) requires a qualitative shift, such as depriving people of additional basic freedoms (eg by locking them away), not merely a quantitative like moving cameras closer to home.
funkyy 12y ago
Most of the issues could be fixed by proper social education. Proper and mandatory. Like mandatory schooling, starting at school level, going through to public/national mandatory TV time. Lets say 10 minutes a day in public/national TV in prime time. Where 5 could be spent on science and teaching and another 5 on social schooling. Quick facts and information. And not something like in Europe right now, where everyone is possible predator. Just proper education created by top specialists, not direct blaming and scaring, but using psychological tricks to make people understand what is wrong and where to look for help. There are countries that figured this out, where violence is not tolerated, like Sweden, Norway...
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  "Hi, my name is Mark Zuckerberg. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, social media is good for you. For example, you can "like" Khan Academy and get a feed of interesting problems to solve."
jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
I can certainly outline why that's different, because those cameras would be in a private place and would be collecting /evidence/ in the form of moving pictures, which would need human review - and hence an invasion of privacy - to determine whether a crime did, or did not, occur. That's not a cool hack, that's purely snooping. A video recording taken inside someone's private home is a world away from a single data point of a car's number plate being noted in a public location at a given date and time. You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable. This is not the answer I was hoping for! :)
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable. A video camera in a private home would have a far higher chance of catching crimes in progress than a number plate camera ever did. So he hasn't done anything to make public surveillance sound entirely reasonable but you're just getting out of it what you want to hear. The scale: - kill everybody (crimerate: 0) - lock everybody up (only crimes committed in prison: probably pretty high) - total surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with a higher rate of solved crimes) - moderate surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with a lower rate of solved crimes) - no surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with an even lower rate of solved crimes, good old policework required to solve a crime, or stupidity on the part o the criminal (probably the majority)) I don't see much difference between total surveillance and no surveillance at all when it comes to the actual crime rate, only to the number of crimes solved and in what way they'll be solved. Assuming that the majority of the crimes is committed by 'first offenders' is probably a mistake on my part so once all the criminals are safely locked up we can get rid of the surveillance, right? Surveillance never was about crime. That's just how it is slowly pushed so you can't object against it, after all, who in their right mind wants more crime?
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You're assuming that a higher chance of being caught has no deterrent effect. My understanding is that this is very much not the case. On the flip side, you're also ignoring the opportunity for abuse of surveillance, which it may make sense to consider additional crime.

by pgeorgi 12y ago

rimantas 12y ago

This is not an extreme example. What is extreme is looking at the world from the law enforcement perspective. Why not just lock everybody in the prison already, perfect conditions for surveillance and control.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pgeorgi 12y ago
It is an extreme example in that everything more intense (at least of the scenarios that I can come up with) requires a qualitative shift, such as depriving people of additional basic freedoms (eg by locking them away), not merely a quantitative like moving cameras closer to home.

funkyy 12y ago

Most of the issues could be fixed by proper social education. Proper and mandatory. Like mandatory schooling, starting at school level, going through to public/national mandatory TV time. Lets say 10 minutes a day in public/national TV in prime time. Where 5 could be spent on science and teaching and another 5 on social schooling. Quick facts and information. And not something like in Europe right now, where everyone is possible predator. Just proper education created by top specialists, not direct blaming and scaring, but using psychological tricks to make people understand what is wrong and where to look for help. There are countries that figured this out, where violence is not tolerated, like Sweden, Norway...

JetSpiegel 12y ago
"Hi, my name is Mark Zuckerberg. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, social media is good for you. For example, you can "like" Khan Academy and get a feed of interesting problems to solve."

jamesbrownuhh 12y ago

I can certainly outline why that's different, because those cameras would be in a private place and would be collecting /evidence/ in the form of moving pictures, which would need human review - and hence an invasion of privacy - to determine whether a crime did, or did not, occur. That's not a cool hack, that's purely snooping. A video recording taken inside someone's private home is a world away from a single data point of a car's number plate being noted in a public location at a given date and time. You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable. This is not the answer I was hoping for! :)

jacquesm 12y ago
> You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable. A video camera in a private home would have a far higher chance of catching crimes in progress than a number plate camera ever did. So he hasn't done anything to make public surveillance sound entirely reasonable but you're just getting out of it what you want to hear. The scale: - kill everybody (crimerate: 0) - lock everybody up (only crimes committed in prison: probably pretty high) - total surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with a higher rate of solved crimes) - moderate surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with a lower rate of solved crimes) - no surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with an even lower rate of solved crimes, good old policework required to solve a crime, or stupidity on the part o the criminal (probably the majority)) I don't see much difference between total surveillance and no surveillance at all when it comes to the actual crime rate, only to the number of crimes solved and in what way they'll be solved. Assuming that the majority of the crimes is committed by 'first offenders' is probably a mistake on my part so once all the criminals are safely locked up we can get rid of the surveillance, right? Surveillance never was about crime. That's just how it is slowly pushed so you can't object against it, after all, who in their right mind wants more crime?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  You're assuming that a higher chance of being caught has no deterrent effect. My understanding is that this is very much not the case. On the flip side, you're also ignoring the opportunity for abuse of surveillance, which it may make sense to consider additional crime.