11–20 of 88 posts
US has more, per-capita? https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/Top-10-Countries-by... USA has 1 camera for every 6 or 7 people?
Is this actually a useful metric? Cities should be compared to cities. Also, that link doesn’t seem to say whether cameras are owned by the state. Presumably surveillance operated by the government is more totalitarian than various private businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is about using Machine Learning on the video feeds, not that there are video feeds. And the issue at hand is that ML algorithms can have racial bias in the classifications.
Seems like a red herring. They want you to assume that mass violations of privacy are okay as long as they're not racist. They're also ignoring classism - It's fine if the rights of the working class are violated, as long as they're all violated equally. Never-mind the people who can afford privacy on the free market.
I think wether you can trust your government to not misuse it (eg tracking minorities) is somewhat separate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this actually a useful metric? Cities should be compared to cities. Also, that link doesn’t seem to say whether cameras are owned by the state. Presumably surveillance operated by the government is more totalitarian than various private businesses.
"lawful access" interfaces can mean automatic access by the government. It's outsourced mass surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist .
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a red herring. They want you to assume that mass violations of privacy are okay as long as they're not racist. They're also ignoring classism - It's fine if the rights of the working class are violated, as long as they're all violated equally. Never-mind the people who can afford privacy on the free market.
I think as long as your in public then it's fine to assume you're being recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in your own house like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and help investigations. For example the Central line in London doesn't have CCTV (unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trai…
So crime just shifted there. If you install CCTV there it shifts somewhere else. That doesn't mean you're decreasing crime.
This is a report by the UK home office which finds that CCTV has little to none impact on overall crime rates: https://techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~iluetkeb/2006/surveillance...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a red herring. They want you to assume that mass violations of privacy are okay as long as they're not racist. They're also ignoring classism - It's fine if the rights of the working class are violated, as long as they're all violated equally. Never-mind the people who can afford privacy on the free market.
I think as long as your in public then it's fine to assume you're being recorded by CCTV. Obviously the government being able to access cameras in your own house like 1984 is not ok. But CCTV in public does reduce crime and help investigations. For example the Central line in London doesn't have CCTV (unlike most of the other lines) and it has the most assaults. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/central-line-trai…
Also, the evidence that CCTV is effective at deterring or solving crime is debatable. There is a plausible alternative theory that it simply moves the crime around. That is OK for you if you live and work in "nice" parts of town, but not so much if you are in the districts where the crime and antisocial behaviour get pushed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this actually a useful metric? Cities should be compared to cities. Also, that link doesn’t seem to say whether cameras are owned by the state. Presumably surveillance operated by the government is more totalitarian than various private businesses.
From a personal point of view the valuable stat would be the likelihood I will be on camera, don't you think? Seems per-capita covers that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist .
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist .
You have no expectation of privacy in public or on state owned areas (roads, walkways, squares, parks).