Hacker News Reader

> I for one prefer the rise of the police state. Have you been to China lately? Amazingly safe.

So is the US. Meanwhile, China is already using their facial recognition technology to track ethnic and religious minorities and is currently "holding as many as a million of them in detention camps" [1]. We have already seen the US government move in a decidedly nationalistic direction over the past few years. Begging for a police state in the name of diminishing returns on security is playing with fire, and we do not need to look far back into the history of the US or Europe to see where that can lead.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/technology/china-surveill...

> Have you been to China lately? Amazingly safe. Never once seen a broken car window anywhere there. There is no such thing as smash-and-grab there anymore and carjackings are unheard of. Used to be a lot of petty crime, not anymore. Cameras are everywhere in big cities. It is safe for any attractive young female to walk out on the streets at midnight there.

This is basically true in 99% of the US as well. Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

The rest of your comment basically sounds like, "Fuck civil rights."

An authoritarian state like China's is primed for tyranny. They're already tyrannical to a large degree, but they are unrestricted in their capacity to become far worse. Being enamored of the actions of a benevolent authoritarian is a short term trap. Tens of millions of people's lives were lost last century as a consequence of power ceded to the state.

San Francisco crime rate per 100,000 people: 715.00

Phoenix: 760.93

Houston: 1095.23

New Orleans: 1121.41

Stockton CA: 1414.56

Milwaukee: 1597.36

Baltimore: 2027.01

Detroit: 2056.67

St Louis: 2082.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

That's only violent crime. From your very link, for property crime, it's the 4th highest of all the US.

This goes along with what the parent was saying. Cops don't go after non-life threatening crimes.

Are property crime stats adjusted in any way for wealth, inequality, or cost of living?

I would expect property crime to correlate with wealth generally, ie, where there's... more property.

It's also not generally the kind of crime people are thinking about when they say they are worried about their safety.

And guess what, property crime has less impact on the rich too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> I would expect property crime to correlate with wealth generally, ie, where there's... more property.

This is obviously not true. Wealthy neighborhoods have far less crime.

The point is that because of the policies of SF to go easy on theft, but go hard on violence, causes a lot of theft.

This doesn't just hurt wealthy people, but anyone who owns anything worth stealing, which in turn hurts any poor people trying to make their way out of the gutter.

If they had their police enforce against both types of crime, SF wouldn't look as third worldish as it now does, with lawless shanty towns surrounding ultra rich, well protected areas. You've probably never lived in a very poor neighborhood, but I have. In my experience those that aren't involved in criminal activity, and are trying to get into a better situation want police presence. They want crackdown on crime, because people just trying to live their lives in these neighborhoods these are the ones that these crimes hurt the most.

This blindeye'd activism which prevents the rule of law in poor areas causes the very same hopeless conditions they are rallying against.

That's only reported incidents.

Do you know how many people in the Bay Area stopped reporting crime because the police won't do anything about it?

Get your car robbed? Call the police and they tell you to fill a report out online.

Oh come on. This is nothing but fear-mongering.

You have a reason to think unreported crime is higher in S.F. than other places? Which is what would make comparative crime statistics inaccurate for S.F.? An evidence-based reason?

Anyone being harmed by violence is too many people, anywhere. I'm sorry if you have been harmed by violence in SF. But in America, it's the safety and comfort of those who are already most safe and comfortable that are prioritized, and the most safe and comfortable believe this is their right. In America, we can't distinguish discomfort from threats to safety.

S.F. is in fact much safer than many many American cities. Deal with it. (And the wealthy are in fact safer than the poor in almost any city).

You want to see a police force that really can't be trusted to do anything about anything, and is engaged in rampant criminality on top of that, plus routine violations of the constitution, come visit Baltimore. Not saying the SF police are "good", I don't think any police are, but you don't have it especially bad in SF. Maybe you don't call the police because you don't think it will accomplish anything -- do you know how many people in the USA don't call the police because they think the police may further victimize them? Probably some in S.F. too, depending on who they are...

> Do you know how many people in the Bay Area stopped reporting crime because the police won't do anything about it?

I guess you do, so how many?

The problem with this line of thinking is that you can't "put the toothpaste back in the tube". You might trust the authorities now, but once you give them the kind of technology that allows them to do the things you describe, they have that technology forever. Sooner or later, someone who you don't like will assume power, and may use that same technology against you or those you care about, in ways you haven't anticipated.

I'm not saying the technology wouldn't be amazingly useful in fighting the multiple rampant problems happening in SF (God I wish it were that easy, there is quite a lot I despise about living in SF). But the long-term impact of doing so would be unpredictable at best and catastrophic at worst.