Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#21

Post by bediger4000 »

nkurz wrote: post #19
lisper wrote: post #5

The difficulty of enforcing the law is actually a useful part of our overall system because it provides a check-and-balance against the overeager enforcement of bad laws. Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. Yes, it becomes annoying when criminals get away with things they reall…

Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by…

I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed.

Most certainly - to exclude those in power from being affected by poorly written laws. See the US Congress, and it's choice to not enforce things like insider trading rules, equal opportunity and ADA compliance on itself.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#22

Post by adambatkin »

dmfdmf wrote: post #9

Its funny how the Left (i.e. the NYT) suddenly realizes, now that their gang isn't in power, that maybe mass surveillance wasn't such a good idea after all.

Nowhere in the article is it even implied that "mass surveillance wasn't such a good idea". The author mostly seems bemused that despite a large number of video (and other data) recording systems being available, no one in the local police department was interested in seriously pursuing the case.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#23

Post by dmfdmf »

fosco wrote: post #20
dmfdmf wrote: post #9

Its funny how the Left (i.e. the NYT) suddenly realizes, now that their gang isn't in power, that maybe mass surveillance wasn't such a good idea after all.

I assume everyone understands a large portion of mass survellience boomed under Bush after 9/11 starting with FISA [0] and continuing under Bush......and will continue to grow under every future president considering there is very little push against it except a minority of people who value their privacy (my opinion), blaming either side is a bit silly. I am a millenial and I consistently observe many of my peers who…

I absolutely agree, its not a "my side versus your side" issue, i.e. Left -vs- Right, it should be universal but somehow people (not just millenials) don't realized how potent the power of surveillance is in the wrong hands. It will attract sociopaths.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#24

Post by bediger4000 »

I'm led to believe that all that surveillance isn't for thief-catching. Surveillance is valuable, otherwise so many cameras wouldn't watch streets all over. I counted 15 cameras between my bus stop and my office 3 blocks away last winter.

So what's the surveillance for? Probably preventing property damage, maybe keep hobos from whizzing in doorways and such. But please, let's stop pretending that the surveillance is for the benefit of those surveilled. It leads to pitiful narratives like this article.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#25

Post by dmfdmf »

adambatkin wrote: post #22
dmfdmf wrote: post #9

Its funny how the Left (i.e. the NYT) suddenly realizes, now that their gang isn't in power, that maybe mass surveillance wasn't such a good idea after all.

Nowhere in the article is it even implied that "mass surveillance wasn't such a good idea". The author mostly seems bemused that despite a large number of video (and other data) recording systems being available, no one in the local police department was interested in seriously pursuing the case.

Yeah, an article in the NYT was only about the author's bemusement. I find that as incredible to believe as the idea that mass surveillance is for the local police.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#26

Post by callalex »

GavinMcG wrote: post #10
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

An Uber driver told me about the time he picked up a credit-card thief. The guy just asked to be driven around (in his SUV) from one side of New York to the other. As the fare ended, he'd hail the driver with a new credit card and start a new one. At one point, he stopped at a house and walked out with a new stack of cards. The driver [EDIT: said he] was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip. Ri…

> The driver was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip That would really surprise me. And he certainly could have declined the subsequent hailings.

Uber drivers are severely punished for not accepting a hail

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#27

Post by bcook »

imagist wrote: post #15
bcook wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you consider the idea that if someone has murdered, they are more likely to murder again (compared to those who never have) an example of "pre-crime"?

You're getting a rare down vote from me because this is such an obvious straw man. At least pretend to try to understand his point.

Can you explain? I agree with the parent poster. I was curious what he considered pre-crime.

My original question was an honest one (as is this one). Yeah, maybe the question was ignorant or stupid... my bad, I suppose. I don't understand why I'd need to pretend to understand anything... that seems dishonest.

I do not understand why an honest question deserves your downvote.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#28

Post by h4nkoslo »

confounded wrote: post #11

Growing up in the UK and living in the US has given me the odd distinction of being strongly against online surveillance of private space, and strongly in favor of regulated visual surveillance of public space. CCTV surveillance can protect the people I care about (especially women at night) from horrible violent crimes I'm actually scared of. It's surveillance of public space, so the privacy compromise seems kind of…

It absolutely cannot "protect the people [you] care about". It may, perhaps, lead to apprehension after the fact.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#29

Post by kapitza »

mirimir wrote: post #18

> After two visits and three calls to the Mission district station, and three calls and two emails with San Francisco Police Department public affairs (a route not open to most civilians), the police assigned someone to my case. That was well over a month after the theft. Walgreens gave them some video, which has been circulated, but Target had already junked its footage. OK, it sounds like someone did some substanti…

Perhaps you've seen The Big Lebowski. "Leads? Leads?"

The odds of the SFPD "investigating" a mere wallet theft are even lower than the Malibu PD trying to figure out who stole Jeff Bridges' car.

For one thing, after Prop 47, stealing anything under $950 is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is basically a traffic ticket for anyone already involved with the criminal justice system. Misdemeanors basically do not result in any kind of custodial sentence in CA today.

Only a reporter could get them to care at all. ("Journalist privilege" is real.) Even then, they can only care so much.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#30

Post by icantdrive55 »

nkurz wrote: post #19
lisper wrote: post #5

The difficulty of enforcing the law is actually a useful part of our overall system because it provides a check-and-balance against the overeager enforcement of bad laws. Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. Yes, it becomes annoying when criminals get away with things they reall…

Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by…

"I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed."

1. We have way too many laws now, and they just keep piling up year, after year. I once heard in California, if you add up all new changes, and bylaws, we are enacting/changing 12,000 laws a year. (I don't have a citation. Just something I heard.)

2. I given up arguing over what laws are needed, and what just sound good.

I would like to see the punishment of all laws (criminal, federal, local, etc.) tied to income. Rich guy runs a stop sign, he gets a $5000 ticket. The poor man gets the current $500 ticket.

I heard Switzerland is trying this?

A poor man gets a $500 ticket; it might just be the last straw?

A rich man gets the same ticket; he mentions it over dinner.

In my world, high fees for Revenue, is not the way to tax. In many cases these fees seem unconstitutional, but who even cares about that old document anymore?

Post reply on HN