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

A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#61

Post by belorn »

repiret wrote: post #33
h4nkoslo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely cannot "protect the people [you] care about". It may, perhaps, lead to apprehension after the fact.

Apprehension after the fact does actually prevent the perpetrator from committing a substantially similar crime, as least for as long as they're in custody. In addition, things that increase the likelihood of getting caught serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals. Which of course is not to say that on balance mass surveillance of public spaces is a net benefit. But it does have some benefits, and it does t…

> In addition, things that increase the likelihood of getting caught serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals.

Heard studies that proves the opposite. The kind of crimes that substantially deterred by the chance of getting caught are crimes which the perpetrator has had time to consider for a length of time. Violence of the moment is generally not deterred by the chance of getting caught, and is practically unaffected by surveillance of public spaces.

Or to mention a few practical examples, road rage isn't effected by surveillance. A person being enraged at a bar isn't effected by surveillance, through a fight outside the bar could. Premeditated murder is deterred by the punishment/likelihood of getting caught, but other forms of murder isn't. Based on the theory, I would also guess that sexual harassment is decreased while rape isn't.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#62

Post by clort »

pfranz wrote: post #13
bcherny wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't totally agree with that. A law should either be enforced close to 100% of the time (with exceptions at the discretion of a court), or 0% of the time (ie. the law should not exist). If jay walking, pot smoking, or anti-sodemy laws are not really enforced, to me that's a sign that they should be taken off the books. In an over-legislated society, we should focus on having strong core legislations that everyone…

Sure, in theory. But I see two problems with that--although they're probably the same idea. Judicial, executive, and legislative are decent abstractions. They're fairly slow to change. Executive is probably the easiest to react to public opinion--which isn't necessarily something you'd want in the other two branches. It can repurpose old laws for new problems and can focus on immediate, concerning issues--thankfully,…

> But it's nice to give officers leniency if I got lost on a trail or my horse got out without having to go to court.

I think the point [made elsewhere] is that it should not be up to the officer to give leniency for any law breaking. The court can do that (via a jury of your peers) but separation of powers means that the officer is not the judge.

This transparency is good because if the officer and you on a dark little back lane come to some private agreement about prosecuting you for a law you have broken, that does not serve the society that wanted the law in place. The court record is a public record for a reason?

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#63

Post by aminok »

nradov wrote: post #46
iamleppert wrote: post #41

I had over $5,000 worth of stuff stolen from my garage (also in SF) a few weeks ago. The police were not concerned in the least. I had cameras, documenting the entire thing with clear faces; it doesn't matter. Unless you're caught red handed or something, you can basically steal whatever you want in SF. It almost makes me want to turn into a thief myself (if I know I can get away with it), except there's that little…

It really depends on where you are. In some smaller cities near SF such as Campbell or Los Gatos the police absolutely take residential burglaries seriously. They have closed a number of cases recently based partially on surveillance camera footage. I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government? Perhaps it's an exampl…

>I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government? Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.

It's politically fashionable to coddle those who commit property crime. It's a form of virtue signalling, since it suggests altruism for the lower class. You see the same thing in Vancouver. There's very little political will to stop the rampant property crime that occurs here.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#64

Post by manarth »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #30
nkurz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by…

"I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed." 1. We have way too many laws now, and they just keep piling up year, after year. I once heard in California, if you add up all new changes, and bylaws, we are enacting/changing 12,000 laws a year. (I don't have a citation. Just something I heard.) 2. I given up arguing over…

  Rich guy runs a stop sign, he gets a $5000 ticket.
  The poor man gets the current $500 ticket.
  I heard Switzerland is trying this?
They've been trying this for a while - someone received a $290,000 speeding fine in 2010 [1].

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#65

Post by mjevans »

arikrak wrote: post #42
lisper wrote: post #5

The difficulty of enforcing the law is actually a useful part of our overall system because it provides a check-and-balance against the overeager enforcement of bad laws. Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. Yes, it becomes annoying when criminals get away with things they reall…

If they always caught people speeding, they could lower the fine so it became more like a tax. The penalties for some crimes could be lowered as well if perpetrators were usually caught.

Why not just make it a tax directly and let those that drive faster than normal buy a plate to let them use the left most normal lane of travel? (Implicitly, restricting everyone NOT using that plate).

In fact, lets make robot drivers that go as fast and close as conditions safely allow... I think we're already on track for this actually.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#66

Post by dagw »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #30
nkurz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by…

"I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed." 1. We have way too many laws now, and they just keep piling up year, after year. I once heard in California, if you add up all new changes, and bylaws, we are enacting/changing 12,000 laws a year. (I don't have a citation. Just something I heard.) 2. I given up arguing over…

In Sweden many fines are defined in terms of wages instead of fixed amount. So the judge will just fine you (essentially) 45 days wages without having to worry about what that works out to be in in actual money.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#67

Post by manarth »

callalex wrote: post #26
GavinMcG wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The driver was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip That would really surprise me. And he certainly could have declined the subsequent hailings.

Uber drivers are severely punished for not accepting a hail

I presume this is punished by Uber, rather than any regulatory body?

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#68

Post by SeanDav »

We are not many years away from facial recognition cameras tracking everyone in public spaces in real time with updates to a centralized database system.

Anyone hiding their face, or not being recognized by the system would be flagged for investigation by on-the-ground units.

At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#69

Post by varjag »

aminorex wrote: post #51
nradov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of violent criminals are not mentally ill.

It does not seem like a stretch to expand the definition of mental illness to include mental conditions which predispose to the commission of violent crimes. Certainly such conditions are maladaptive for the sufferer.

I don't see how reclassifying crime as illness is going to help anything except making psychiatry much less credible.

Re: A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief

#70

Post by pasta »

SeanDav wrote: post #68

We are not many years away from facial recognition cameras tracking everyone in public spaces in real time with updates to a centralized database system. Anyone hiding their face, or not being recognized by the system would be flagged for investigation by on-the-ground units. At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.

This is already the case in Dutch streetcars. Every face is scanned and matched against a black list database.
Post reply on HN