Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

coveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 339 posts

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#191

Post by bonoboTP »

Stefan-H wrote: post #154
bonoboTP wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean trying to catch employee theft vs theft by externals? Why can't you write plainly instead of in riddles?

You are asking me why I can't write plainly, but I believe you're confusing me for the author, but I'll answer you anyways. "Plain" language removes nuance. Example: "She sat on the chair". The number of ways that action can be described are as innumerable as the ways it can be done, and then some - as different people may describe an act in different ways. Communication in all forms is lossy, but you can convey more…

I asked about your comment that I replied to. The "stories" you see in the camera positioning would need elaboration. To me the concept sounds quite mundane. It's pointed at something they want to see. Cash register: see if someone steals, possibly an employee. ATM: See if it gets robbed. Camera built into the atm: capture photo of robber. Not sure what deeper story or insight lies in it and you gave no example.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#192

Post by goda90 »

hamdingers wrote: post #122
goda90 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if instead of trying to figure out how to catch criminals, we focus on building a society where no one wants to be a criminal? Can we find solutions to what causes crime, like desperation, greed, fear, failure to understand and have compassion for other people, etc?

A leading cause of premature death in the US is car crashes. Car crashes are in almost all cases caused or exacerbated by operator negligence. That negligence is not caused by desperation/greed/fear/lack of empathy, but by a confidence that one won't get caught or punished. I can't imagine a better way to deal with this problem than with cameras that can detect these behaviors and issue citations impartially and cons…

> That negligence is not caused by desperation/greed/fear/lack of empathy, but by a confidence that one won't get caught or punished.

Greed comes in for the perceived time savings of speeding or ignoring signals or the desire to "have fun" or be perceived as cool. Lack of concern for pedestrians and other drivers/passenger by driving recklessly is the lack of empathy/compassion part.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#193

Post by bonoboTP »

dylan604 wrote: post #128
bonoboTP wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought jurors don't decide the sentence length, just the (not) guilty verdict. Are you implying they were testing whether you're willing to let the judge use the entire span of sentencing available in law? Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean that you were bounced from the jury because the defense lawyer wanted you to be fine with 99 years in prison for his client.

Nope. The jury was to give the sentence. This depends on jurisdiction when the jury does the sentencing. Capital murder cases are a famous example. I guess I was lucky that my local jurisdiction said GTA was worth of a jury sentencing?? The defense attorney was looking for jurors sympathetic to giving his client the least time possible. The prosecutor was looking for people to throw the book at the defendant and be o…

It seems that the selection process optimizes for either liars or dumb people who are easiest to emotionally manipulate. If you appear very reflective and capable of complex thought, you're a risk.

You could've said, you're open to whatever sentence, you make no prior commitment and will decide for whatever sentence is appropriate based on the court proceedings and the law as given by the judge. But they would have called bullshit on that too, they are good at seeing who is a difficult person to work with from their POV.

It's a very broken system and I'm glad to live in a civil law country. The power imbalance is huge. The lawyers are incredibly well prepared regarding tricks around jury psychology but the jury are selected for being the most naive people possible. If you seem too much of a smartass to them who knows their tricks, you're out.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#194

Post by patsplat »

nostromo wrote: post #72

I think this is just the new normal. My car was stolen in Seattle and it was found with the person driving it when he was pulled over by police. In the car he had paperwork with his name on it, a weapon, and his work uniform in the trunk with a name badge (he was a security guard - lol) along with a neighborhood witness. Despite a mountain of evidence, the prosecutors declined to press charges because without direct…

The stolen property in the story in the above comment was recovered. I don’t see how this justifies more surveillance that is likely to be abused.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#195

Post by saltyoldman »

foota wrote: post #165
saltyoldman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yeah, but I don't need to. These cameras ARE already the result of 9/11.

Weird justification since 9/11 was a plane hijacking, not something on the streets.

They wrote a 600 page report about it and it included a ton of recommendations. Not many people remember at this point, but for months and even a few years after, the entire country was on edge about it happening again, in different means (trains, car wrecks on purpose, shootings). There is a reason they have called this a post-911 world ever since. That hasn't ended.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#196

Post by RIMR »

nostromo wrote: post #72

I think this is just the new normal. My car was stolen in Seattle and it was found with the person driving it when he was pulled over by police. In the car he had paperwork with his name on it, a weapon, and his work uniform in the trunk with a name badge (he was a security guard - lol) along with a neighborhood witness. Despite a mountain of evidence, the prosecutors declined to press charges because without direct…

This is such a strange reactionary take to blame Seattle jurors for this.

I agree that this should have resulted in charges, but every cop in Seattle wears a body camera. Even if your theory was correct (it isn't), they would actually have video evidence of this person driving your car without an explanation after you reported it stolen.

I suspect that there is more to this story that either you don't know, or you aren't telling us, because your logic here is very flawed.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#197

Post by toast0 »

fny wrote: post #107
nostromo wrote: post #72

I think this is just the new normal. My car was stolen in Seattle and it was found with the person driving it when he was pulled over by police. In the car he had paperwork with his name on it, a weapon, and his work uniform in the trunk with a name badge (he was a security guard - lol) along with a neighborhood witness. Despite a mountain of evidence, the prosecutors declined to press charges because without direct…

Your forgetting the nonsense a defense attorney will conjure. How do you know he didn't buy the car from the thief? We had a similar issue with the hit and run of my grandfather: even though video evidence found the car and later saw the suspect leave the car, the detectives worried a defence attorney would argue someone else may have been driving at the time the accident (e.g his wife), and therefore "beyond reasona…

My brother bought a stolen motorcycle once. He checked with California DMV before purchasing it, and IIRC, the DMV issued him a title. Several months later, the local PD came over, asked him a lot of questions, took the motorcycle and let him go. Of course, he couldn't get in touch with the seller again, so he was just out the money.

Stolen property doesn't come with a sticker indicating it's stolen.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#198

Post by malwrar »

nostromo wrote: post #72

I think this is just the new normal. My car was stolen in Seattle and it was found with the person driving it when he was pulled over by police. In the car he had paperwork with his name on it, a weapon, and his work uniform in the trunk with a name badge (he was a security guard - lol) along with a neighborhood witness. Despite a mountain of evidence, the prosecutors declined to press charges because without direct…

I don’t understand how video evidence from a mass surveillance network would have helped here. They found your car without it! Shouldn’t your issue be with the prosecutor, and thus your ineffective local government?

Otherwise, what’s to stop them from just telling you video evidence isn’t enough, because jurors have become accustom to thinking that video evidence can be faked by vindictive cops?

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#199

Post by throwaway173738 »

runjake wrote: post #185
VohuMana wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, do we know why crime isn’t being prosecuted anymore? I’ve noticed where I live this definitely seems to be the case and has a two fold effect, police aren’t even bothering to enforce laws because when they do the city/county refuses to prosecute and then criminals are getting wise to this and escalating their crimes. Previously where I live there would be violent crimes but generally in the early hou…

I'm not qualified to answer, but I regularly hear the following in the US: - Not enough (LE|DA|jail) funding or staffing or space. - "We want to focus on violent crimes". I have a whole rant about this, watching violent criminals/rapists going through revolving doors. - Use of diversion and "restorative justice" programs, which clearly do not work for certain classes of criminals with very long rap sheets, but here w…

> Use of diversion and "restorative justice" programs, which clearly do not work for certain classes of criminals with very long rap sheets, but here we are.

But they clearly work on others, so they’re probably fine.

> Not enough (LE|DA|jail) funding or staffing or space

This is a solvable problem if you’re willing to pay taxes on it. I think it’s a good thing because newer facilities and more staff probably leads to more humane treatment of prone in jail. We could also stop routinely jailing people who are awaiting trial, too.

Re: A walking tour of surveillance infrastructure in Seattle (2020)

#200

Post by LeifCarrotson »

dhosek wrote: post #163
gwbas1c wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because jurors in Seattle have become accustom to thinking that the only way to overcome reasonable doubt is to have it on video. Who serves on a jury frequently enough to become accustomed to anything? I've only been mailed for jury duty a few times, and every time when I check the night before I'm waived out.

I think a more accurate way to phrase this is that potential jurors in Seattle have grown to believe etc. How does that happen? Television. They see the police pulling up surveillance videos or using high tech lab technologies on television shows and assume that these fictional techniques are the norm. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

Television courtrooms are half of it, the other is social media. Tiktok and Youtube and Facebook will show you videos all day long with notable events that were pulled from security cameras, or uploaded by bystanders with cell phones, or found in the background of videos that were intended to capture something else.

The other side of the equation is that surveillance infrastructure is already nigh omnipresent, as described by the attached article. A juror who gets alerts every day from their Ring doorbell, who drives a Tesla with an integrated dashcam, and parks in a lot covered by their apartment's security cameras, can be easily persuaded that camera surveillance should be the standard of proof.

Post reply on HN