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.
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.
That seems awfully nitpicky. Cameras cannot physically stop a crime in progress, but neither can any other remotely reasonable public safety measure.
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.
Apprehension after the fact does actually prevent the perpetrator from committing a substantially similar crime, as least for as long as they're in custody. In addition, things that increase the likelihood of getting caught serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals.
Which of course is not to say that on balance mass surveillance of public spaces is a net benefit. But it does have some benefits, and it does the debate disservice to deny them.
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.
I didn't down vote you, but I did ignore your original comment because it was hyperbolic (bringing up murder and pre-crime). It didn't have any direct bearing (or seem to) to its parent post or the article. If you (and you seem to be) are just genuinely curious about their opinion on pre-crime that's fair, but it didn't seem related, it really did feel like a hyperbolic non-sequitur.
I don't totally agree with that. A law should either be enforced close to 100% of the time (with exceptions at the discretion of a court), or 0% of the time (ie. the law should not exist). If jay walking, pot smoking, or anti-sodemy laws are not really enforced, to me that's a sign that they should be taken off the books. In an over-legislated society, we should focus on having strong core legislations that everyone…
What about something like speeding? Let's say we get rid of speeding laws since they're not 100% enforced. Should we have unregulated driving? Move towards a law that simply says "no driving unsafely"? IMO those are both poor ideas—they're either unsafe or vague and subjective. I don't see a way around having well-defined speeding laws, yet there are plenty of situations where it's silly to ticket an individual who's…
I'm fine with no speeding laws. It's not the speeding part that hurts people and causes damage, it's the crashing part. We, as a culture, love to make these second order laws that outlaw not the harmful action but the risky "derivative" of the harmful action. Because some people might crash when they speed, we outlaw speeding. Because some people might hijack planes, we confiscate nail cutters and toothpaste. Because some people might commit mass-murder we outlaw scary looking guns.
>'m probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement.
You're being naive as all hell. You'd quickly learn about a hell of a lot of rules you're head was previously too far buried in the sand/up your ass (take your pick) to have noticed.
I don't totally agree with that. A law should either be enforced close to 100% of the time (with exceptions at the discretion of a court), or 0% of the time (ie. the law should not exist). If jay walking, pot smoking, or anti-sodemy laws are not really enforced, to me that's a sign that they should be taken off the books. In an over-legislated society, we should focus on having strong core legislations that everyone…
What about something like speeding? Let's say we get rid of speeding laws since they're not 100% enforced. Should we have unregulated driving? Move towards a law that simply says "no driving unsafely"? IMO those are both poor ideas—they're either unsafe or vague and subjective. I don't see a way around having well-defined speeding laws, yet there are plenty of situations where it's silly to ticket an individual who's…
IIRC Montana didn't have speed limits in a lot of places until the national speed limit came around and the federal government threatened to take away federal highway money if they didn't step in line.
IIRC some part of Australia got rid of speed limits and nothing happened. It wasn't the end of the world like the concerned mothers association predicted
> 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…
What you say is true.
And yet, while "journalist privilege" got them to do something, it was a harder thing, and would have taken tons of work to yield anything. But not the easy thing, contacting Uber. It's odd. Maybe they were just messing with him.