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

121–130 of 156 posts

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

#121

Post by Ntrails »

dumb-saint wrote: post #108
Ntrails wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cameras are a tool of authoritarianism because they tell you in no uncertain terms that someone is watching. Pointing a camera at a space changes how people behave in it. Not really? I don't look for cameras and I legit don't see them pretty much anywhere. I know they're in all the tube stations, but it doesn't make me wary? I'm sure cameras mean you're less likely to do things which are not allowed - but guess what…

> Not really? I don't look for cameras and I legit don't see them pretty much anywhere. I know they're in all the tube stations, but it doesn't make me wary? Are you saying or are you asking? > I'm sure cameras mean you're less likely to do things which are not allowed - but guess what, I actually would rather have less vandalism, less assault, etc etc. Yes, and you are also less likely to do things that are allowed,…

I'm not asking, I'm telling but with a questioning inflection to reflect the absurdity of the statement.

I don't believe any of your suggestions are true in a way that don't apply to public spaces in general. I wouldn't do "thing x" in case the wrong people saw, but that includes the possibility of a friend of my boss seeing me making out with his wife so I'm not going to do that where I might be seen.

Claiming that surveillance is bad because oppression is bad is a Strawman. It's the process of taking any position (the GP stating public cameras are fine) and then introducing your own version of his claim (Cameras=Oppression) and then arguing against oppression.

>"They" have already done that over and over in analogous historical situations.

This argument sits in the box with my father who was eternally upset because we didn't have the military to fight a war and we'd regret that because ~World War 3~. He may indeed end up being right, but to pretend that nuclear proliferation hasn't changed the face of war seems ludicrous to me.

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

#122

Post by JackFr »

dumb-saint wrote: post #108
Ntrails wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cameras are a tool of authoritarianism because they tell you in no uncertain terms that someone is watching. Pointing a camera at a space changes how people behave in it. Not really? I don't look for cameras and I legit don't see them pretty much anywhere. I know they're in all the tube stations, but it doesn't make me wary? I'm sure cameras mean you're less likely to do things which are not allowed - but guess what…

> Not really? I don't look for cameras and I legit don't see them pretty much anywhere. I know they're in all the tube stations, but it doesn't make me wary? Are you saying or are you asking? > I'm sure cameras mean you're less likely to do things which are not allowed - but guess what, I actually would rather have less vandalism, less assault, etc etc. Yes, and you are also less likely to do things that are allowed,…

> A strawman is when you attack a claim that was not actually made by your opponent.

...

> I can show them to you, but you will probably just say that I am exaggerating and that this is a different situation.

?

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

#123

Post by dumb-saint »

pdimitar wrote: post #95
dumb-saint wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think modern airports are a good prototype for the sort of dystopian environments we can expect in the future. It will only get worse until the entire thing collapses, as it always does -- Stasi, McCarthyism, Gestapo, you name it. This time it's more scary because the technology is sci-fi compared to the previous iterations. I am more and more convinced that the cyberpunk guys got it right in terms of predicti…

[ Apologies for off-topic ] As a relatively new cyberpunk fan, let me give you a few points: (1) Cyberpunk is very much about being realistic about human nature. Some of us (like me) assume malice by default. You might not believe me but I get saddened every time I am proven right. This is coming from a 36-year old programmer supporting his mother and girlfriend. (2) We don't assume altruism by default because (2.1)…

Thanks! :)

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

#124

Post by dumb-saint »

Ntrails wrote: post #121
dumb-saint wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not really? I don't look for cameras and I legit don't see them pretty much anywhere. I know they're in all the tube stations, but it doesn't make me wary? Are you saying or are you asking? > I'm sure cameras mean you're less likely to do things which are not allowed - but guess what, I actually would rather have less vandalism, less assault, etc etc. Yes, and you are also less likely to do things that are allowed,…

I'm not asking, I'm telling but with a questioning inflection to reflect the absurdity of the statement. I don't believe any of your suggestions are true in a way that don't apply to public spaces in general. I wouldn't do "thing x" in case the wrong people saw, but that includes the possibility of a friend of my boss seeing me making out with his wife so I'm not going to do that where I might be seen. Claiming that…

It all depends on your model of who is on the other side of the camera. If you think the entity on the other side is on your side, you probably have fuzzy feeling about cameras. If you don't think that the watcher is someone like you, it feels creepy.

Again, historically, people who had comfortable positions in an oppressive regime tend to sincerely claim that the abuses being attributed to secret/political polices are an exaggeration. They are usually not lying, they had a nice position in society, so those that protect the status quo feel benevolent to them.

Most people on this site have a very nice situation in live compared to the remaining 99% (to be conservative) of the world. So I take any "doesn't bother me" uttered here with a grain of salt. Also, many here have a vested interest in the expansion of the global technocracy.

When I go to the UK I feel oppressed, even though I have no intention of breaking the law. You can argue that I am crazy and should take some meds, but this is how I actually feel. Judging from art that I see (for example from Banksy), I don't think I'm alone in feeling like that.

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

#125

Post by lordnacho »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #48
nkurz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're extremely naive. The US and its individual states have a litany of laws on the books. There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday, gay people in particular. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Cardinal Richelieu

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

#126

Post by dumb-saint »

kamjam wrote: post #99
dumb-saint wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it extremely creepy to visit the UK because of all the cameras, sometimes actively pointed at me. It is one thing to not expect privacy in the public space, in the sense that others can see you. It is another to be actively targeted by a gigantic network of cameras connected to who knows what -- in an age where automatic face recognition is becoming trivial. I would like to ask people who make the "you have no…

I've never understood this "UK is creepy cos of all the cameras they have". Yes, there are a lot of them in the built up cities, most are privately owned and a lot are probably directly controlled by the government (and related agencies as well). The large paranoia towards the UK probably stems from "The UK has more CCTV cameras per person than anywhere else in the world" but no ones knows this to be true for certain…

> It may well be true, but don't think that you're being filmed any less in any other first world country.

In Germany there are strong laws against CCTV proliferation. They exist mostly in public transportation, and their presence has to be clearly advertised. You can even order Google to blur your house on street view. Try it in a German city, and you will see how common it is.

And yet, Germany is one of the safest countries in the world.

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

#127

Post by certifiedloud »

kamjam wrote: post #99
dumb-saint wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it extremely creepy to visit the UK because of all the cameras, sometimes actively pointed at me. It is one thing to not expect privacy in the public space, in the sense that others can see you. It is another to be actively targeted by a gigantic network of cameras connected to who knows what -- in an age where automatic face recognition is becoming trivial. I would like to ask people who make the "you have no…

I've never understood this "UK is creepy cos of all the cameras they have". Yes, there are a lot of them in the built up cities, most are privately owned and a lot are probably directly controlled by the government (and related agencies as well). The large paranoia towards the UK probably stems from "The UK has more CCTV cameras per person than anywhere else in the world" but no ones knows this to be true for certain…

Wouldn't cameras-per-person be a more meaningful metric in this context than total count?

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

#128

Post by 0xfeba »

LordKano wrote: post #114
tombrossman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had my car stolen a while ago in San Diego county. I was very low on fuel so I knew whoever did it would have had to fill up soon after the theft. Fast forward two weeks and my car was found. When I got it back, a credit card receipt for fuel at a nearby gas station was sitting in a tray in the center console. The date and time were the same night as the theft, after I had parked for the night. I first rang the sta…

No one's career gets made by catching a car thief. Perhaps by busting a car theft operation but no one is going to get promoted for one car thief. I would suspect that the hostility you felt from the officer was because you got your car back and no one was injured so there was no glory to be had in arresting the thief.

Yup. Metric-driven results. The police, in my area, get rewarded for making arrests--not taking their time to find the actual culprit.

So the two concerns overlap, sometimes.

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

#129

Post by 0xfeba »

iamleppert wrote: post #41

I had over $5,000 worth of stuff stolen from my garage (also in SF) a few weeks ago. The police were not concerned in the least. I had cameras, documenting the entire thing with clear faces; it doesn't matter. Unless you're caught red handed or something, you can basically steal whatever you want in SF. It almost makes me want to turn into a thief myself (if I know I can get away with it), except there's that little…

Yep. Property crime conviction rates are pretty low, 20% in my area last time I checked. Murder is only 60%.

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

#130

Post by Jtsummers »

crispyambulance wrote: post #103
Jtsummers wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, that doesn't make sense. You're witnessing probable criminal activity, and aiding it by providing the ride which could make you an accomplice once you were aware of the activity. What law could possibly prohibit you from reporting this or leaving the passenger behind? EDIT: Looking it up I'm not finding anything except stories of Uber drivers kicking people out mid-ride. Perhaps a particular municipality has…

Because by the time "law" enters into the picture, the driver will have been booted by Uber, the thief will have been released from jail and already started on his next stack of credit cards and being driven by another Uber driver.

There is still no law that mandates you must be an accomplice to a criminal or that you cannot boot passengers out. Reading Uber driver stories, it seems kicking out passengers isn't too uncommon. Yeah, it's a hit, but most of them said you need to contact Uber immediately to explain the situation (with mixed results). Personally, I'd rather do that than drive a criminal around to commit crimes (including defrauding my employer).
Post reply on HN