From wiki.. "The number of murders in Atlanta was 80 in 2009, 92 in 2010, 88 in 2011, 85 in 2012, 82 in 2013, 93 in 2014, 95 in 2015, and 111 in 2016." [0]
In fact, 2016 is also a blip and then it goes back down again until 2019, and 2022 was the high point. It is almost as if the incidence of homicides is entirely unrelated to flock.
Similar to how gun laws aren't about the safety of guns, I think Flock cameras, and other surveillance technologies simply encroach on individual freedoms.
A citizen should be reasonably free from government surveillance.
Cameras do not prevent crime. This has been eminently shown endlessly. Now ideally they help then find the culprits, but in practice this just isn't happening.
What is this based on? They do seem to prevent crime [1][2][3]. To my naive perspective, this seems ludicrously obvious, since there are just countless examples of thieves looking around for cameras, and then noping out once one is seen, that can be found on YouTube. As a youth, who enjoyed urban exploration with my friends (aka trespassing) it definitely deterred our group from entering a properties. It doesn't prevent certain crimes, but to say it doesn't prevent any is a perspective that I, and the insurance agencies that give discounts, just can't comprehend.
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/cctv-surveillance-c...
[2] 13% drop https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/technology/personaltech/s...
[3] 25% drop https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz3631/files/230...
Only everyone knows most of these cameras aren't monitored. The effect of the monitoring concern has dissolved.
And it's especially ridiculous to claim that cameras stop gang violence, which comes in ebbs and flows. Which was the "look it stopped all the murders!" There are various other absurd takes throughout this discussion, and HNers should realize that Flock has a massive PR campaign underway, and an enormous number of astroturfers spreading hilariously stupid stories about the gang members intimidated by...a camera.
No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim.
> I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount
I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance. Insurers only give discounts if there's tangible risk reduction (they're actually in it only for the money).
Cheers!
LOL, one link observed that crimes dropped from 11...to 7. And again, these are almost certainly monitored cameras, which I *specifically* addressed, and the paper is hilariously worthless noise. I would expect that cameras in a subway system have a security guy sitting in a booth with an array of TVs, which is legitimately concerning to petty criminals. A bunch of worthless recording cameras are not.
>I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance
A tiny minority of insurers offer discounts in the 2% range if you install unmonitored cameras. This discount is a pat on the head discount, and you clearly know nothing about insurance if you really think that betrays a tangible risk reduction.
Christ, insurers don't even care if you have an alarm system unless you have an active monitoring contract. Because again, while the simple thing this is a big deterrent, it actually isn't.
"and the insurance agencies that give discounts"
Which insurance agencies give discounts for unmonitored cameras? Can you cite it? I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount, but overwhelmingly they only give discounts for active monitored cameras. For precisely the reason I mentioned above: Having an SD card showing that "yup, someone stole the car" is useless.
...but it can. Unfortunately something like this with a huge number of independent variables, it's hard to know.
Prove to me it wasn't my hamburger eating.
Crime is complex, and it’s incredibly silly to look at those two variables and call it a day.
https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/baltimores-histor...
Official BPD LPR policy says they use them: https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/bpd-policies/10...
Here you go from BPD on recent initiatives, many of which involve surveillance: https://www.baltimorepolice.org/resources-and-reports/new-te...
Also, show proof.
"At a high level, the strategy involves three parts: identification, notification, and action. First, a series of weekly meetings led by BPD identifies people at high risk of committing a shooting or being the victim of one. Then, a team of people—usually a combination of a detective, an outreach worker and a community member—notify the person, either during an individual visit or as part of a group “call- in,” that they are at risk of being involved in a shooting and that they have become a focus of GVRS and law enforcement. "
https://crimejusticelab.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/w3529...
Here you go from BPD on recent initiatives, many of which involve surveillance: https://www.baltimorepolice.org/resources-and-reports/new-te...
It also begs the question of if there is a deterrent effect from cameras to commit homicide, couldn't that deterrent be achieved with a far less controversial technology?
You'll do great.