The murder that shook Iceland
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
> They don't mention if the autopsy revealed when during the course of these events the girl died.
It does, she drowned after she was put in the water.
> It seems remarkable that despite a perceived lack of sufficient surveillance, they have an extremely likely killer convicted
The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating evidence. Without linking the red KIA to Polar Nanooq, it is possible that nothing would have come of it. The perpetrator had left the country with almost all the available evidence, and such a large search would likely not have been launched so her body might have never been discovered.
It was by the skin of their teeth that the police managed to link the car in the first video to the boat. Had the first video been better (or more from the same area), they would have been able to identify the license plates right away.
A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" -- but rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment.
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.
Only just 5 years ago the number of visitors to Iceland was roughly the same as the population (300,000+).. these days it's in the multiple millions.
The increase in tourism has caused an influx in immigration which has subsequently caused an increase in crime. Luckily not much, and it's not because "immigrants cause crime", it's just a byproduct of going from a homogeneous society to one that becomes more made up of outsiders who sometimes don't have the group's best interest at heart.
At any rate, the point is that here the government is less of a direct threat, and the benefit that could be gained in cases like these is worth the piece of mind that it brings to the public knowing that these systems are used to help in the worst of situations.
For the record I am very pro-privacy, but when you balance the pros and the cons here, the cameras come out on top.
CCTV cameras on public streets (and license plate scanners for that matter) don't, for me, appear to violate that. I suspect that this level of surveillance has done a lot of public good (finding abductors for example).
Are there a significant number of instances when it has done the opposite?
I don't think security cameras in public place necessarily sacrifice either.
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.
My point is that it depends on each culture's understanding of "freedom" and "privacy".
Yes, I understood that, but I just mean there was a 4+ hour window when that could have actually occurred it seems, and I don't know if more surveillance could have improved the precision on that. "Traffic cameras" are common on what I would refer to as "routes" - large roadways heading outside the city. I think that might've helped in this case.
> The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating evidence.
This is a good point. It's tough for me to understand the purpose of a CCTV camera that can't pick out a license plate on a public street - isn't that half the point!? Perhaps just a matter of poor positioning...
FWIW, I'm neither for nor against additional CCTV in major cities. It's got its drawbacks, and of course it's advantages.
> A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" -- but rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment.
Interesting - definitely cultural. I've noticed similar differences between the US and Canada.
Like how they steal bicycles because they know police don't have resources to bother with that.
Or how the steal phones from your hand in London for the same reason.
Now imagine if an AI would trace their path through thousands of CCTV cameras. It could even automatically dispatch a squad to arrest them from home. Surely that would deter many of them, since now crime would send you to jail instead of giving you a free phone.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973
I don't have a particular point of view either way other than to say that context matters, and pragmatism matters, and the solution to these potential problems can't be "remove all surveillance" any more than it can be "surveil everything."
But CCTV footage wouldn't have stopped this madness. It would have helped find her body a little more quickly.
In the long term, I guess surveillance would discourage violent crime, as the idea that "they'll see us, the police will catch us" gradually becomes well accepted among people who have the potential to commit crimes. This is probably already true in London, and maybe in other closely-surveilled capital cities.
But even if everyone sane shares the knowledge that "they're watching us", psychotic actors will still do psychotic things.
Her body was eventually found naked and battered in a distant location, and the rental had forensic sings of having been cleaned of her blood. The sailor was recorded buying cleaning products at the same time, his DNA was found on her discarded clothes and her driving license was found in his cabin on the ship (along with a few pounds of hashish). A truly disturbed individual that tried to pin the murder on his colleague up until the very end.
Kudos to the captain for being very responsible and secretly turning the ship around on suspicion his men were involved.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
---
This is an interesting, longform article that touches on a lot of interesting topics. It's something people here may find interesting which seems to be the case.