Hacker News Reader

What if instead of trying to figure out how to catch criminals, we focus on building a society where no one wants to be a criminal? Can we find solutions to what causes crime, like desperation, greed, fear, failure to understand and have compassion for other people, etc?

Unfortunately that's not how society works. I don't think I can think of any society out there where this idealistic model works. Of course I'd love for that to happen, but that's just not where we are at right now, nor would it be something that could happen overnight. We have to live with what we have right now. And right now the majority of people seem to welcome this technology and have no problem with it at all.

My view on the topic has shifted from "how can we stop this?" to instead "how can we make sure it gets implemented in a way that has the proper checks/balances to ensure citizens still have some right to privacy even when in the public?".

Personally, I am actually more concerned about the fact that every big store out there is using technology to track me as soon as I enter the store and likely has a big profile of data on me. I'm more uncomfortable with that reality and it's something that continues to happen with no restriction. Which is why I think I'd be okay with this technology as long as it has proper auditing and is kept fairly specific in when it can be used and who has access.

I guffawed at "proper checks/balances". Since ICE brownshirts have been roaming around with masks and automatic weapons, abducting random people and even shooting some, you're at "checks/balances". What?

I'm not American, I never mentioned America, and these cameras are being installed across the world. Not everything is about America and a single government agency. Sometimes it is about the bigger picture when having discussions. I also disagree with your very biased wording of such a discussion and don't wish to go down this line of unproductive discussion.

The article was about Seattle and the surrounding discussion has been US-centric. I recognize it's a global problem but I don't think it's the same everywhere. We shouldn't just throw up our hands like "oh well."

Yes, but you're arguing against a police agency utilizing a tool to enforce existing laws. Whether or not you agree with enforcing immigration laws is your opinion, but it is a law and that is not personally what my comment is concerned about or addressing. I am referring to misuse, this would not be misuse, it would instead be a law you disagree with enforcing. Which I feel is off-topic from my discussion as it is centered around laws you disagree with, not about the underlying idea of Flock cameras being added.

If you have a problem with police being able to utilize cameras to enforce laws, please make your case about that. But if your problem is about a specific government agency enforcing laws that you disagree with, please move on. I'm not interested in a political debate about that.

It feels like you have not been paying attention at all. There isn't accountability when government stormtroopers shoot law-abiding citizens in the streets. (There hasn't even been an investigation). That's not me "disagreeing with certain laws"--the federal government is blatantly violating constitutional rights--and, incidentally the law. And here you're arguing the surveillance state is going to have "proper checks and balances" and just abide by said checks and balances. You're literally saying "oh they're just enforcing the existing laws" when the current US administration is the most lawless ever and refuses to hold itself accountable for anything. The breakdown in the rule of law is just staggering. They can take their cameras and shove them.

Have a good day!

This is largely because states will not cooperate with ICE to help identify criminals among immigrants. ICE is not an issue in states where the police are cooperating with it.

Good old-fashioned "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" extortion. Why should a state want the federal government to just do whatever it wants within that state?

Reducing poverty only has a minor impact on crime.

I think some Criminals commit crimes because they know they will most likely get away with it, they are bad people

A leading cause of premature death in the US is car crashes. Car crashes are in almost all cases caused or exacerbated by operator negligence. That negligence is not caused by desperation/greed/fear/lack of empathy, but by a confidence that one won't get caught or punished.

I can't imagine a better way to deal with this problem than with cameras that can detect these behaviors and issue citations impartially and consistently.

It's totally possible to implement a system where cameras do this but do not record enough data to amount to consistent surveillance of people who aren't acting negligent (i.e. using radar to trigger them), but as long as the conversation is "cameras everywhere vs no cameras ever" these kinds of compromises seem unlikely.

> That negligence is not caused by desperation/greed/fear/lack of empathy, but by a confidence that one won't get caught or punished.

Greed comes in for the perceived time savings of speeding or ignoring signals or the desire to "have fun" or be perceived as cool. Lack of concern for pedestrians and other drivers/passenger by driving recklessly is the lack of empathy/compassion part.

We have the technology - the government could automatically ticket you a dollar per mile per hour over the speed limit if we wanted it to.

And if nobody sped except in emergencies fatalities would likely be way down (and speed limits would be adjusted up where sane).

For anyone trying to figure out how to build a society where no one wants to be a criminal, I highly recommend When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment by Mark Kleiman.

There are evidence-backed ways of reducing criminality.

One counterintuitive way of reducing crime is to increase the likelihood of being caught, to have small-but-increasing consequences for committing crimes, and to increase the swiftness of sentencing.

For example, if you are caught drinking and driving, you immediately spend 1-2 days in jail.

Long sentences are not very productive at reducing crime or at least are a very inefficient way to do so.

Scott Alexander has a good analysis of these issues:

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-...

An intuitive way to understand it is imagining that there was a system where if you stole something, you 100% of the time got hit with a charge to your account of the item value + $10. No one would steal again even if the penalty for getting caught was relatively nothing. Because the feedback loop is so short and guaranteed.

No ones life would be ruined over a dumb choice and yet they would change their behavior very fast.

You have to deal with the judgement-proof somehow.

There’s effectively two sets of laws - one for those with something to lose (fines, etc) and one for those with nothing to lose.

It’s still the same. If you steal something and have no money you lose the item and get some small penalty, perhaps a day in jail. If there is absolutely no chance you’d get away with it, everyone quickly realises there is no point.

I think people miss that this is a possibility. Yet it's fairly easy to see that when more people become homeless more bicycles get stolen off the street. Idk about you, but I'd have to be pretty desperate to steal a bicycle. Idk about you, but if I was living on the street struggling you find food, I'd be pretty desperate. I mean FFS you don't even have a stove to cook ramen. And where are you going to get the money to afford a camping stove?

What's that quote about essential Liberty and temporary Safety again...

When you get a gun pointed at your face, or your home violated, or your car stolen, you tend to rebalance your principles a little. The cameras are a symptom of bigger problems.

This is the main issue. People aren't going by what may be the best solution long term, they are going by what they feel and experience in the moment. Right now people feel unsafe and they feel these systems increase their safety and seem unphased by the privacy ramifications. I personally still am not sure how I feel as I do value my privacy, but at the same time I also understand how this can be a useful tool. Many tools the police have also invade my privacy as well to some degree.

It's so hard to draw a line of what is good or bad, and it seems like the majority are okay with this technology. Which I think means the conversation should shift from should we allow these cameras at all, to instead, how can we allow them to be implemented in a way that minimizes privacy risk as much as possible while still remaining a valuable tool to solve crimes.

You also rebalance your principles when you rot your brain with vast quantities of fearmongering slop on your screens, and that’s way more common.

It's a bit of a protection racket isn't it? The police extort me for money and claim it will be used to protect me from the situations your present. Yet they do none of those things, because they can't be there in that moment. The police are not the solution. Spying on me is not the solution.

It’s a pretty unhelpful quite imho. You can use that quote to oppose anything beyond pure anarchy!

Yes the police can be abusive tyrants. But a society with no rules and no rule enforces is not a prosperous society. And yet if you lived in total anarchy you could oppose anything beyond pure rules and any rule enforcement with that quote.

Clearly the slope is very very very <breathe> very very slippery. And yet the ideal, dare I say necessary, point is not at the far end cap.

Can you show me the contract I signed that shows I agree to adhere to those rules? This is forced upon us with no choice by the individual other than to not participate and live in destitute conditions or in jail. The police are enforcers of rule, and for that I will always oppose them.

Keep quoting it and people will continue to ignore it

Look around.

99% of people couldn’t care less about privacy and are begging to give over their whole personal life data for (insert corporation) “points/rewards/discounts”

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

But as we all know in context Franklin was talking about the Penn family wanting to literally purchase temporary safety from native American raids privately (rather than being taxed) and weakening the ability of the PA General Assembly to govern.

I'm guessing he'd probably be pro privacy, though.

My understanding of Franklin is that if he were alive today he’d probably spend most of his time on Onlyfans.

A lot of European countries manage it just fine. There can be reasonable rules and regulations put in place, but America usually waits until the worst harms have already occurred before regulating. It has already been heavily abused by the government/ICE. Hopefully we still have a functioning electoral system to make the necessary changes.

On one hand I understand that they have the capability of incredibly enhancing the ability for police departments to solve more crimes.

Do they?

There are millions of these cameras all around the country, yet when pressed about their value, Flock and cops can only point to one or two crimes prevented/solved at a time. And they're usually things like "caught a burglar after the fact," or "stopped someone from dumpster diving."

Get back to me when they find Samantha Guthrie.

I share the parent's internal conflict, but this is an interesting critique that I hadn't considered: The cameras don't actually work. Do we have any data on that? Seems like I hear about stolen cars (and their drivers) getting picked up fairly frequently due to these cameras. Is it marketing or is it true?

I think they are just being intentionally ignorant on the topic due to their dislike of the system overall and I don't think that is fair of them. There is lots of videos even of YouTube via bodycam videos with many police departments making good use of these cameras to aid in solving crimes. I'm sure there are many articles and maybe even research out there which would show this.

I think it's just a way to try and dismiss the cameras without trying to tackle the heart of the problem. When you have to contend with the fact that the cameras have a lot of useful purposes, it makes arguing against them much more challenging. If you can pretend they are not useful, it may be a way to try to stiffle any productive discussion around them.

> Get back to me when they find Samantha Guthrie.

Nancy?

Probably. I don't follow it. All I know is that a high-profile person's mom got kidnapped and in spite of all the billions of dollars spent on surveillance technology in this country, she's vanished into thin air.

Doesn’t that mean we have an insufficient number of cameras?

Or an insufficient number of AirTags installed in Grandma.

As I recall, she lived in a rural neighborhood of the catalina foothills where houses are far apart and set back from the trees, so the surveillance coverage even from Ring cameras was really sparse. In a regular suburban neighborhood or urban area there would probably have been a half dozen recordings of anyone coming or going to her house.

I've already watched many dozens of bodycam videos on YouTube where the Flock cameras we used to help track down suspects of crime, so I feel like this may just be a case of you being ignorant on the topic. You can argue on the other merits of such a system, but I think you're being a bit silly making an argument that these don't help solve crime.

dozens of bodycam videos on YouTube where the Flock cameras we used to help track down suspects of crime

In my country (United States of America), tracking down a suspect isn't the same as solving or preventing a crime. Suspects aren't criminals until found to be so in a court of law, not in the court of social media.

That you think modern surveillance tech keeps people safe because you watch dozens of social media videos doesn't mean that people are safe, it means you got sucked into the advertising.

I'm skeptical as well. Was recently on a jury for a murder case of all things, and while they had a ton of footage from traffic cameras across 3 separate towns, MOST of the evidence that was really damning was a combo of prints at the scene and location data from cell providers and phone extraction.

Kind of moot if, when the police allegedly call you to report finding your stolen car, they use misleading caller ID and don't leave a message.

Not really sure what this has to do with my comment, it just sounds like you're airing a personal grievance with an individual in a police department.

It's one more anecdote to the anecdata of police being generally useless.

It not "definitely" but rather "definitely possible" that cameras could be used for safety, or that the police could work for the citizenry. But they don't. They're inclined not to share info, including that they're the police when ostensibly they're trying to help you by calling you to tell you that they found your stolen car. So instead what happens is you never get the call (and there's no real proof they called), and the tow company with the City contract gets paid because now you have to go pick it up at the impound lot.

But I have my neighbors to thank for really showing me where their priorities lie: the plague of rabbits which was ignored for three months until it was so bad that they collected over 30 rabbits, the person who threw burnt moulding from inside his house over the fence into my yard before he finally set the house on fire for real but the police didn't want to see the moulding or take a police report and wanted me to go talk to them. Just a couple of highlights.