131–140 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The UK is also notoriously surveilled and their crime rate is right on-par with the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they were saying is they prefer people to behave because they want to be good people which are part of a good society than to be good people simply as a byproduct of fear of jail.
When did we start making good people? I thought we were still using the base model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy on instagram does a good job of highlighting this (and other unsafe roadside hazards). https://www.instagram.com/theguardrailguy?igsh=ZXAxM2h2ZXFub... From his bio, he lost his daughter to a guardrail crash and started exposing improperly installed guardrails.
For people who don't have instagram: https://imginn.com/theguardrailguy
Even with all this said, surveillance like this is certainly going to be one of the best ways to catch criminals and reduce crime over the long term. I hope the misgivings that we have around Flock won't close the door to us ever using this type of technology, in some way, in the future.
You will never find anyone who is against these cameras saying that they don’t reduce crime. Of course they do. The problem is what you give up to have that is far, far more valuable and we can point to the “Ben Franklin” quote here about those who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither.
People really don't like public safety crime. Not only will they vote for surveillance, they will vote for public safety authoritarians like Bukele just to stop it.
They are thinking: What good is your abstract notion of freedom if I cannot leave my house at night, and I have to be hyper vigilant of violence?
I don't know the solutions to this. The media clearly plays a big role in this, but regulation of media and social media is its own can of worms.
One thing I am quite confident about is that actually stopping public safety crime without surveillance must be a priority, otherwise it's cart before horse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two separate types of events with associated probabilities: 1) the probability of being harmed by criminals, and 2) the probability of being harmed by the government. For most people in most places, police are ineffective and therefore the first is orders of magnitude more of a problem. For example in the Bay Area, car break-ins are incredibly common and police are incapable of solving it. This would be unt…
> There are two separate types of events with associated probabilities: 1) the probability of being harmed by criminals, and 2) the probability of being harmed by the government. #1 is annoying but has many solutions. You can call the cops, you can defend yourself, you can sue in the courts. #2 is the most terrifying one since there is absolutely nothing you can do. Thus any society needs to do the utmost to prevent…
It's crazy to think the amount anti-social / low trust behavior SF/NYC puts up with on a daily basis. It's some weird type of Stockholm syndrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Japan is not a surveillance society. UK is not a high trust society. If anything the most trusting British people are likely found in places with the least surveillance.
> UK is not a high trust society. sorry but data and experience does not bear that out. Denending on which source you look at, the Uk is a "high trust" society. Now, your assertion about surveillance, sounds true but kinda rings a bit false. The places where there are less CCTV cameras tend to be rural areas, and let me tell you, they do not trust anyone they don't know (I used to live in rural england) why? because…
People always want high trust societies. They are incredibly hard to create and incredibly easy to destroy. However, once the cameras go up, you will never ever create one there. High trust requires, well, actual trust. You can’t build real trust in a panopticon just a sickly police state facsimile of it. Society and progress moves at the speed of trust. Without it many uniquely human and beautiful things disappear.
The idea that surveillance undermines high trust societies seems insane to me. Widespread petty crime, lack of shared cultural norms and traditions, lacking of missing social reinforcement of expectations of a society - those are what prevent high trust societies from forming. I consider those things a much worse problem then Flock cameras.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that surveillance undermines high trust societies seems insane to me. Widespread petty crime, lack of shared cultural norms and traditions, lacking of missing social reinforcement of expectations of a society - those are what prevent high trust societies from forming. I consider those things a much worse problem then Flock cameras.
I don't think surveillance prevents crime. Not having so many poor people prevents crime. Some people will always be antisocial due to tendencies and possibly mental illness, but having a society that is so rich and yet has so many poor people as the USA will of course create criminals. No amount of cameras will solve that.
Low income correlates, but not cause/effect. Giving cash to poor people in high crime areas doesn't solve crime rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is I think if you give people the choice between a 0.001% chance of getting murdered on the street or a 100% chance of being surveilled 24/7 you will find that people will take their chances with the murderers
Reality shows otherwise. Take a look at Google and free-for-ads-and-surveillance everything. People are willing to make compromises on privacy for less important things than the change of them or their loved ones getting murdered, as mentioned as an example. But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home. ps: I'm not for a panopticon, enforcement needs to come with…