While sad, I like their names though: Birna Brjánsdóttur, Birna Brjánn's daughter.
The murder that shook Iceland
61–70 of 76 posts
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you love using evidence then you should probably take a look at it once in a while. It’s no coincidence the economic powerhouses in the US are also the most diverse and progressive places in the US, and that the US is the economic center of the world. Diversity has nothing to do with losing culture. It’s about sharing cultures and understanding other cultures and points of view. Diversity is a fundamental requirem…
> It’s no coincidence the economic powerhouses in the US are also the most diverse and progressive places in the US [..] Yeah, right. This has absolutely nothing to do with being 'diverse' and progressive. I don't know what you had in mind (SV?), but this all is caused by stuff that already happened decades ago. This is pretty well documented history. > [..] and that the US is the economic center of the world. Pride…
> Yeah, right. This has absolutely nothing to do with being 'diverse' and progressive. I don't know what you had in mind (SV?), but this all is caused by stuff that already happened decades ago. This is pretty well documented history.
You can believe that it's not due to diversity, but you cannot make the argument that SV's current success is based stuff that happened decades ago. That's like saying the US was founded by white people, ensuring its current success. That would basically claim that everything that followed, all policies, events, progress, had no effect? That would be ludicrous.
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we are told and must believe despite contradictory evidence that diversity is always and in every way "our strength". Even though when discussing company hiring practices people switch their rhetoric to proclaim "our culture" is very important and we must keep our company's culture the same, bring on new people slowly as to preserve the culture etc, etc. Interesting cognitive dissonance.
If you love using evidence then you should probably take a look at it once in a while. It’s no coincidence the economic powerhouses in the US are also the most diverse and progressive places in the US, and that the US is the economic center of the world. Diversity has nothing to do with losing culture. It’s about sharing cultures and understanding other cultures and points of view. Diversity is a fundamental requirem…
Interesting that you shoe-horned economics into a discussion about culture and crime.
But anyways, I think Japan, and China would disagree with your arguments.
But more importantly, I think it is the political and social realm where "diversity" causes the most friction.
Increasingly, much of our political, social, and cultural debates and discussions are focused on diversity and racial issues.
The more "diverse" one's citizenry, the more they will be saddled with these kinds of hot-button issues. The more identity groups, the more separate political constituencies will exist.
They crowd out, or influence, almost all other discussions around politics and economic. Increasingly social-justice/multiculturalism/diversity is involved with every issue in the political sphere. This is not a positive development.
To the degree these kinds of changes happen slowly, the more diverse cultures assimilate to the host culture. Diversity supporters do not generally support limited, slow immigration, but rather open borders.
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#64It is interesting that the article states that Iceland's conclusion from this case (and probably others) is "more surveillance." They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. Would more surveillance have prevented her death? Or is the argument that it would serve as a deterrent? It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have a…
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it w…
> "we don't need it"
But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#65While sad, I like their names though: Birna Brjánsdóttur, Birna Brjánn's daughter.
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it w…
> "we don't need it" But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
We actually might need it more than ever.
Only just 5 years ago the number of visitors to Iceland was roughly the same as the population (300,000+).. these days it's in the multiple millions.
The increase in tourism has caused an influx in immigration which has subsequently caused an increase in crime. Luckily not much, and it's not because "immigrants cause crime", it's just a byproduct of going from a homogeneous society to one that becomes more made up of outsiders who sometimes don't have the group's best interest at heart.
At any rate, the point is that here the government is less of a direct threat, and the benefit that could be gained in cases like these is worth the piece of mind that it brings to the public knowing that these systems are used to help in the worst of situations.
For the record I am very pro-privacy, but when you balance the pros and the cons here, the cameras come out on top.
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it w…
> "we don't need it" But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
To play devil's advocate, in the U.S. privacy extends, legally, to the degree to which a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
CCTV cameras on public streets (and license plate scanners for that matter) don't, for me, appear to violate that. I suspect that this level of surveillance has done a lot of public good (finding abductors for example).
Are there a significant number of instances when it has done the opposite?
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#68It is interesting that the article states that Iceland's conclusion from this case (and probably others) is "more surveillance." They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. Would more surveillance have prevented her death? Or is the argument that it would serve as a deterrent? It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have a…
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it w…
> It does, she drowned after she was put in the water.
Yes, I understood that, but I just mean there was a 4+ hour window when that could have actually occurred it seems, and I don't know if more surveillance could have improved the precision on that. "Traffic cameras" are common on what I would refer to as "routes" - large roadways heading outside the city. I think that might've helped in this case.
> The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating evidence.
This is a good point. It's tough for me to understand the purpose of a CCTV camera that can't pick out a license plate on a public street - isn't that half the point!? Perhaps just a matter of poor positioning...
FWIW, I'm neither for nor against additional CCTV in major cities. It's got its drawbacks, and of course it's advantages.
> A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" -- but rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment.
Interesting - definitely cultural. I've noticed similar differences between the US and Canada.
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#69It is interesting that the article states that Iceland's conclusion from this case (and probably others) is "more surveillance." They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. Would more surveillance have prevented her death? Or is the argument that it would serve as a deterrent? It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have a…
Criminals always follow the path of least resistance. Like how they steal bicycles because they know police don't have resources to bother with that. Or how the steal phones from your hand in London for the same reason. Now imagine if an AI would trace their path through thousands of CCTV cameras. It could even automatically dispatch a squad to arrest them from home. Surely that would deter many of them, since now cr…
Why do you need an AI to do that? A log of facial recognition matches...
Re: The murder that shook Iceland
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Just for context, I am Icelandic, but have no other connection to this story.) > They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died. It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. > It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it w…
> "we don't need it" But the truth is you really don't need it. Based on what the article says, you could pave the place with security cameras and it would be decades before you caught another foreigner murdering one of your teenagers. It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
> It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy.
I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.