The murder that shook Iceland • Hacker News Board

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#71

Post by 13of40 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

arnarbi wrote: post #70

13of40 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Just as a thought experiment: Why don't we put cameras in public bathrooms? It wouldn't harm anyone, and it would stop some crimes.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#72

Post by boomboomsubban » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #53

PantaloonFlames wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a long game, adding surveillance. Surely more surveillance would not have prevented this senseless murder. No one knows why it happened; it seems to have occurred without any reason. We can surmise momentary insanity or a drug-induced psychotic episode. The apparent perpetrator refuses to confess, so maybe he doesn't even remember how it happened, though obviously he remembers scrubbing the car. But CCTV footage…

So how come in London (a LOT of cctv) which has just had a really heavy spike in murderers and Gun crime?

CCTV has been in London for a long time now, and violent crime is still down from it's introduction. CCTV is not the only factor relevant to a murder rate, and a "spike" in the overall lower numbers should be an expected result.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#73

Post by arnarbi » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 11:53 PM UTC

13of40 wrote: post #71

arnarbi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy. I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.

Just as a thought experiment: Why don't we put cameras in public bathrooms? It wouldn't harm anyone, and it would stop some crimes.

Personally I'd be ok (it turns out that everyone poops!), but I realize I'm in the minority and get your point.

My point is that it depends on each culture's understanding of "freedom" and "privacy".

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#74

Post by tom_mellior » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 11:57 AM UTC

oxymoron wrote: post #31

tom_mellior wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, as hinted above, there are lots of other confounding factors. Also, Wikipedia's wealth inequality list looks a lot less similar to murder rates than the income inequality list I posted above. Would you know off the top of your head if Pinker wrote about wealth or about income inequality? (Or yet another measure?)

I looked it up, since I got downvoted (see sibling comment). Since he’s talking about the Gini coeffecient, I’d presume he’s referring to income inequality, although it’s not explicit.

Right, thanks for the quote. The Gini coefficent is applicable both to income and to wealth inequality, so that doesn't answer the question. (Not your fault, of course.)

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#75

Post by soneil » Sun, Apr 15, 2018, 11:38 AM UTC

13of40 wrote: post #71

arnarbi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not worth sacrificing your freedom and privacy. I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.

Just as a thought experiment: Why don't we put cameras in public bathrooms? It wouldn't harm anyone, and it would stop some crimes.

I think it'd be fair to say that's a textbook example of "reasonable expectation of privacy".

If someone watches you walk down the street, your reaction would be somewhere on a scale between not even noticing, and thinking they're a busybody. If they joined you in a stall while you expell a few demons, it's a safe assumption you'd rather different opinion of them.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#76

Post by surfmike » Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 6:12 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #46

surfmike wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Willingness to trust strangers. https://ourworldindata.org/trust

Yes. Social trust was probably actually the term I should have used, e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-23/you-can-t... It seems to be somewhat inversely related to diversity but not entirely. As Megan has also written, Greece and Italy are also fairly homogeneous but don't have most of the social characteristics of the Nordics.

And Canada is very diverse but has relatively high trust.