> the reduction in crime is not solely due to Flock, but is has definitely helped.
what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
If Arizona was blanketed in CCTVs, do you think this kidnapping would have happened?
And if it still did happen, I'm 100% sure the suspects would have been caught by now (11th+ day since the disappearance now).
I think you fundamentally misunderstand crime and deterrence.
I didn't. Does a strict rule of law and enforcement of said law lead to no murders? No. Does it reduce the amount of murders that occur? Yes (see Singapore).
Obviously, that conclusion is flawed, because the data also shows otherwise in some countries I guess - and just using the death penalty as data point is useless. There are way more factors in play that lead to murder.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
Look at places where there are CCTV cameras all over, there is very little crime there compared to the United States. I won't use China as an example because then you are going to attack me for saying it's an authoritarian state. In that case I will use democratic examples: Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.
At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus...
People tend to behave in the ways that the people who own the surveillance apparatus want them to behave. This assumes that the people who own and operate the apparatus (oftentimes private corporations) can be trusted to monitor and act in the best interests of society. Unfortunately, the people who own and operate these have shown that they are largely untrustworthy and motivated by profit and power.
Regardless, most people would not sacrifice personal agency and democracy for supposed safety. "Behave" just means "obey" or "comply" when used in the context of "people tend to behave if they are being watched"; consent is notably absent.
As in: no mass protests, no anti-ICE measures but most importantly: no more pesky journalists filming and photographing everything. If we then disable the upload of amateur videos of social unrest to TikTok, we're halfway there, just a little more intimidation of civil rights advocate's via observing their every move via the cars and people will behave even better. /s