After shooting, MSU promised safety. It delivered surveillance

My predictions...

"University profits by selling behavioural data and close contact list of students to advertisers"

"University secretly assigns students AI social credit score"

"Students face crushing AI generated bills for minor infractions and behavior like loitering, poor and minority students most affected."

Or: “Weaponized campus police drone used lethal force to stop the mass shooter drone.\n This is the second time in this week when...”

I wonder what other costly, dangerous and useless stuff one can distribute, so kids and students can be endangered even more, so this would warrant more surveillance and policing?

Besides guns, alcohol and amphetamines?

Yes, an obvious question that leagues of mainstream "journalists" consistently fail to ask. But not only is mass shooting porn good for rating, and nudging the next mass shooter into position but it serves The State as well.

It's not a good when the self-proclaimed free press misses softball questions that would challenge the narrative of The State. But it's hard to point at something that isn't there even when that void is the exact problem you wish to highlight.

This isn't a response to the shooting, according to the article they had decided to implement it prior to the shooting.

Never let a good tragedy go to waste right? Political reactions never are about solving the problem, they're about exploiting tragedy to push through something one's camp already wanted.

I guess this has always applied but it certainly sounds true today

The problem with the current approach is that it collects data and monitors the movement of everyone present, include innocent people. The data is centrally gathered and used for privacy violating purposes.

A better option would be to decentralize the monitoring and enforcement. Autonomous robots with cameras and guns could be installed everywhere - - they'd process all video locally, by themselves, and could take action right away. This way privacy is not violated.

It likely depends upon the type of crime you are trying to prevent. If you are trying to prevent crimes where the perpetrator assumes there will be no witnesses, then I can see how surveilance could[1] be effective. If you are talking about a mass shooting, a crime where the perpetrator must assume there will be witness and they will be caught (short of suicide, which seems to be common in these scenarios, then it is hard to see how surveilance will be effective.

[1] I say could because it probably involves the mental state of the person commiting the crime.

You can't break windows if there are no windows to break. It sounds like a joke but actually environment does affect crime rate and types of crime. Here's one such document that talks about it: https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol2num1/notes....

> This basically requires surveillance, no?

No offense but when were you born? Surveillance technology is relatively modern. What do you think the world look liked 50 years ago? 100?