Hacker News Reader

Comment by samschooler | Hacker News Reader

So I am actually from Edina, I don’t currently live there but my parents do. The context of this is a string of robberies and crimes not normally seen in this suburb. Edina is generally seen as a safe suburb, and all of the recent crime came on very sudden.

I don’t agree with the program, but since I have some context around it, I thought I’d add to the conversation.

[0]: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/12/11/edina-pd-offers-5k...

View on HN

My family had a friend who was eating a restaurant with his wife at lunchtime. In broad daylight someone swiped their catalytic converter while they were eating.

The suburbs are not nearly as safe as they were. My county has reported an explosion in carjackings and is considering boosting the police budget, and has referred to it as crime spillover.

There has always been some amount of crime in suburbs. A single instance doesn’t prove anything about whether the rate has gone up

I agree. Edina is a low crime area. This feels like a classic cake eater program.

I'll take it with grace, but I feel like "cake eater" should at least include EP and/or Minnetonka. Edina, as a whole, has become much more diverse and varied in income in recent years. Granted there are some hold out areas of affluent-bubbles, but as a whole, Edina isn't an outlier anymore.

What is it about the program you don't agree with, if you don't mind elaborating?

Maybe close cooperation with the deeply corrupt and unjust police makes you complicit in the outcomes.

Maybe that is what they believe, but I'm specifically asking samschooler since they are in a unique position to comment on it.

Except in this particular case there appears to be a near-zero risk of anyone being "complicit" in bad police outcomes, given that it's opt-in, can only be used on a case-by-case basis, and it's the citizen who searches their own cam footage, voluntarily, and only in response to a specific police request about a specific case.

So, while at first glance at a headline, this might seem problematic, after reading the details, I'd probably be willing to participate. This can't really be abused to create any George Floyd-type situations.

Maybe. And maybe homeownership is crossing the Rubicon in that respect.

Probably nothing but they hadn't typed 'cake eater' in a while...

I don't agree with the close ties between private residential camera systems and the police. This program, allows police to ask for footage from any camera without a warrant. Granted, its voluntary, there need to be checks within the program that prevent police from mass requesting camera footage without a legitimate reason. And I don't want that check to be individual private citizens who, given the least amount of pressure will need to comply.

Many police investigations center around video evidence as is it objective and easy to admit.

Police build little databases of where cameras are located and will use them to build timelines, etc. I served in a jury where the police were able to identify a hit and run driver who killed a teenager by knitting together surveillance footage from a bunch of cameras and establishing what cars were in an area in a given 5-minute window.

I think what is novel, is the proliferation of residential cameras.

I don't think the police started requesting camera footage of crimes from private citizens recently. It's just that they turned to businesses with security cameras.

I think realistically many people who own property cooperate with the police out of a definite sense of self-interest with no coercion required.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com