Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141
post #19
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 be more comfortable with automated prosecutions if automated defense were already one generation more sophisticated.

So a camera catches you crossing a street outside of the designated times at a marked crosswalk. Ticketbot 1.0 automatically enters the complaint and mails you your summons, and you are immediately taxed some time or money to defend yourself.

Would it not be more fair for Publicdefenderbot 2.0 to review the video footage, and inform Ticketbot 2.0 that you did not create a hazard to traffic by crossing at that time? Ticketbot could concede the point, and dismiss its complaint before even mailing the summons. Hurrah for technology that does not produce a gratuitous waste of human effort! The human lawyers only have to take over in situations where the obvious defenses don't overwhelm the obvious evidence.

Or perhaps Speedcambot clocks your car going 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, transmits, "J'accuse! I gotcha, you bastard!", and your car replies, "Deepest apologies for the infraction, your majesty, but it's daytime, the pavement is dry, traffic is light, my tires and brakes are fine, and I can react in 15 ms." So Speedcambot says, "Fine. I'll allow it." and miraculously refrains from bothering the human.

When a victim gets involved, you just have to add an Accountantbot to the mix. If the baker has a loaf stolen, Accountantbot asks, "How much would it cost to buy your right to press charges?" So baker says, "10 bucks?" Accountantbot quickly crunches the numbers, determines that $10 is less than the cost of a prosecution multiplied by the likelihood of going to trial, pays off the victim, and now Prosecutorbot and Publicdefenderbot work out a non-prosecution agreement wherein the bread thief has to attend a paid job training program for 40 hours, at $10/hour, then spend a minimum of 80 hours servicing the air conditioning units in the county datacenter, at $25/hour. The human lawyers go play golf, or racquetball, or something else that is so uselessly human.

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

#142
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be totally down to remove speed limits in some places (I drive cross-state every weekend, so I'd love it :-) but, in my opinion, speed limits can be useful in certain areas. Off the top of my head: - Residential areas (like actual suburbs or cities) would benefit from speed limits. I'm a bit of a libertarian, but I'd prefer we have intentionally slow things down in highly populated areas, particularly where there…

I also think that speeding laws are good. However I think it would be better if we designed our streets so that drivers don't drive at dangerous speeds. Have frequent speed bumps, narrow lanes, cobblestones, etc on residential streets.

Posting a "SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" sign is not nearly as effective for keeping cars out of your living room as a few stout concrete posts extending 4 ft above ground level and 8 ft under it.

The sign does not prevent someone from driving like an ass.

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

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>When I go to the UK I feel oppressed, even though I have no intention of breaking the law. [..] Judging from art that I see (for example from Banksy), I don't think I'm alone in feeling like that.

I very much doubt you're alone, and I am more than happy to concede that my perceptions and your perceptions are both valid. When you start saying that the current UK government is oppressive though, i'm liable to get a bit fractious about the meaning of words. They are not, on any realistic measure, an oppressive regime.

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

#144
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely share your views. If I'm in public, I by definition should not expect privacy.

I disagree with this sentiment. To give an example that is a bit more emotional, I would strongly object to some stranger taking pictures of a young child playing in a public park.

> To give an example that is a bit more emotional, I would strongly object to some stranger taking pictures of a young child playing in a public park.

Talk about the worst argument ever. "Think of the children."

The child is in public. Am I allowed to see your child in public, or do I have to avert my eyes? If I can watch your child, I can photograph him/her.

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

#145

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…

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 would like to ask people who make the "you have no expectation of privacy in the public space" claim if they wouldn't mind if I hired a guy to follow them everywhere they go and then report to me.

I wouldn't mind.

My life is divided into public and private spheres. If you try to invade my private space (spy inside my home, ban encryption, etc.) then you will have rigorous pushback.

My public life is public and open to inspection. I'll gladly provide you with a list of everywhere I ever go if you like.

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

#146

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.

A few weeks after my car was stolen, another car appeared around the corner and looked to be abandoned (newer car, window left rolled down overnight for a few days) and I mentioned this to my mom. She's very community-minded and went and looked in the abandoned car. She found a letter inside the glove box with a name and looked the person up in the phone book. Nice old lady who confirmed it was her car and it had been stolen.

We learned from this lady that our neighbor's meth head twentysomething son had a girlfriend who lived in the same neighborhood as she did - where my stolen car was abandoned. A lazy cop would call that one hell of a coincidence. A motivated cop would have made the effort and rid the neighborhood of a pest who had graduated from petty crime to multiple felonies.

Just one example and honestly, what are the odds of all those pieces coming together, but it does show that selective enforcement isn't impressing anyone.

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

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"neither can any other remotely reasonable public safety measure"

How about allowing citizens to carry their own protection?

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

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wrong, and a news story this week proves it. I can't find the link but there was a known sex offender who had served his sentence. A woman was walking home alone late at night so someone monitoring public CCTV decided to follow her via the cameras. They then saw the sex offender approach and begin verbally harassing her. Police were called and got there before things got more serious.

"Someone monitoring public CCTV" is where it tends to break down.

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

#149

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…

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 entirely sympathize. Over time, I've gradually come to the same conclusion as Bruce Schneier in Data and Goliath: regulation and legislation are the only way to make sure that surveillance works in the interests of the people, not against them. It should be possible for a society to decide what its surveillance is and is not used for.

The problem that we currently have in the US and the UK is that there is a total breakdown of trust between the state and the citizenry. The government does not trust the people it obstensibly serves, and lies to them. Many people generally are apathetic and disorganized (proud individualists). It's the latter part that means that decisions are likely to go against the interests of the population, and this problem extends well beyond surveillance.

I should have originally mentioned, it's possible for CCTV -- without good legislation -- to have almost no utility for individuals. This is what the linked article demonstrates; corporate surveillance protects corporate interests.

All this said, I remain optimistic about the prospect for change. 2016 beat the political apathy out of me.

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

#150
post #61
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> In addition, things that increase the likelihood of getting caught serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals. Heard studies that proves the opposite. The kind of crimes that substantially deterred by the chance of getting caught are crimes which the perpetrator has had time to consider for a length of time. Violence of the moment is generally not deterred by the chance of getting caught, and is practically…

I absolutely agree that not all crimes are deterred by the likelihood or consequences of being caught. But the intersection of crimes that are committed in public and crimes that are committed dispassionately, where the likelihood of being caught can deter them, is non-zero; therefore public surveillance can deter crimes, and one cannot simply dismiss that possibility when considering the pros and cons of mass public surveillance
Post reply on HN