4 ms·

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 picture

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.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I don't subscribe to the view of humanity that we'd all be raging maniacs if we knew that we wouldn't get caught. Most people are decent and most criminals are not smart enough to evaluate their chances of getting caught rationally, if they did then the prisons wouldn't be as full as they are. The chances of getting caught if you're committing a crime are plenty high as it is, and yet we still have repeat offenders. As rule criminals are not capable of seeing the consequences of their actions, don't know the penalties for the crimes they commit and are frequently not even in control of what they're doing. It's a complex situation, but surveillance does not seem - to me - to be a major factor. If it were then the crimerate in London would be around 0 today.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      You make two errors of the same form. It need neither be the case that a zero chance of being caught means a 100% (or even "high") chance of committing crime, nor that a 100% chance of being caught means a zero chance of committing crime, for there to be a monotonic relationship between increased chance of being caught and decreased chance of crime.

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.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I don't subscribe to the view of humanity that we'd all be raging maniacs if we knew that we wouldn't get caught. Most people are decent and most criminals are not smart enough to evaluate their chances of getting caught rationally, if they did then the prisons wouldn't be as full as they are. The chances of getting caught if you're committing a crime are plenty high as it is, and yet we still have repeat offenders. As rule criminals are not capable of seeing the consequences of their actions, don't know the penalties for the crimes they commit and are frequently not even in control of what they're doing. It's a complex situation, but surveillance does not seem - to me - to be a major factor. If it were then the crimerate in London would be around 0 today.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You make two errors of the same form. It need neither be the case that a zero chance of being caught means a 100% (or even "high") chance of committing crime, nor that a 100% chance of being caught means a zero chance of committing crime, for there to be a monotonic relationship between increased chance of being caught and decreased chance of crime.