I was thinking about this with flock cameras the other day...what's our actual ROI? Was the world horrible before and these initiatives are going to close a monster crime gap or is this just a giant fishing expedition ... just because?
Think back to the capital riots/insurrection/what-ever you want to call it; they used similar systems to identify and arrest those participants. Heavily publicize how many people and who; doesn't matter if you a 63yo grandmom or a pastor, we will find you and prosecute. Showing that you are prosecuting the "normal" people is part of it, show that and you make them less likely to show up to the next thing, less likely to provide support.
The Capital has many cameras owned by the feds, so they could easily do that. Chicago, Atlanta, LA not so much. When anti-ICE action takes place with protestors in black block, going under umbrellas, makes it hard to identify and prove. With strategically placed cameras, you can see what cars came in the area. You get statistical data that shows if they are there normally there. Get enough abnormality and you get enough for a search warrant.
Why should it matter if you are a 63yo grandmom or pastor?
That the government has used them to prosecute a man who assassinated someone or a large group of traitors does not seem to be an indictment of the capabilities.
An example of the government combing through records to pile on trivial charges to throw at a peaceful protestor or otherwise "over" charge them to create a chilling effect seems more apt for a discussion about the dangers of a panopticon.
When I brought up J6, it was not because I wanted to discuss the ideology but because this is the first time to my knowledge that we prosecuted over 1,500 people for a single event. Looking at the NPR database; Violence is 417 cases, Property destruction is 55 cases, Conspiracy is 48 cases. Assuming no overlap between those, you have ~980 people that fall into the "useful idiot" or "stupid mob" category.
Should they have been there? No of course not.
If my point can't be understood because I am using J6 as an example, please substitute J6 with Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter.
The change we are seeing with technology is not the amount of data we are storing but that we are able to process this data and build it out into a model.
hypothetical We saw you on a camera on J6 in the Capital but also have cell data showing you traveled down with other people. Don't have them on camera but the cell data shows they were close to you at all times, so we can charge them.
I wanted to link to a video of a protest I saw a little while ago; it showed protestors in Black Block swarm some cops then all run under a group of people that had umbrellas. When the group moved, all the black block clothes were on the ground so the responsible parties couldn't be tracked. However this time the police drone captures some footage of them before they changed into the black block, so they were able to make arrests.
This would be able to take it further, now you could see who the protestors trained with and charge them with Conspiracy.
The Nancy Guthrie case felt like ring cameras and Flock or traffic cams should have figured it out in no time. Yet it didn't happen. I feel like this is going to be something that only really works in cases, where investigation would solve it.
The Nancy Guthrie case on the other hand went nowhere, because we couldn't definitively make a match.
On the other hand we have multiple instances of bad data causing people to be subject to being targeted by the police. We have police threatening or arresting people based on a lack of corroboration. Some times ignoring clearly exonerating evidence.
The world is a better place without license plate cams.
It happens that the J6 rioters were on the wrong side of truth and history, but I would rather some of them get away with it than live in a perfectly effective panopticon.
Edit: we’ll be arguing about “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” for the rest of time, won’t we.
It's purely about the unease of living in chaotic cities, the random stabbings, the shoplifting, the visible homelessness etc. Flock is the stopgap here.
Partly the "feeling" of chaos is just that, a feeling, driven significantly by algorithmic feeds feeding us every random crime from around the country 24/7. Husband murders wife in a murderous rage? No one hear's about it. Mentally ill man murders a woman on the train in a Tier 2 city, immediate nationwide breaking news.
The other part though is a real dissolution in how we take care of our mentally ill. Complex topic [1].
I think complaining about Flock is complaining about the symptom. Today we dogpile on Flock to get it cancelled, tomorrow the public will reach for something else. We have to fix the underlying disease, which is a combination of the two factors above.
[1]: https://time.com/6265241/america-care-of-mentally-ill-people...
When questioned about owning them, people like to talk about security, convenience, porch package theft, etc, none of which require the devices to have a field of view extending beyond the property line. And yet, somehow they just conveniently contribute to a police-searchable database of everyone that walks past their house, with no recourse.
You can correct me if I’m wrong though.
Edit: actually, from what I find in the 1950s there was even ongoing heroin epidemics, in addition to gang warfare, and of course racial inequality
>Edit: actually, from what I find in the 1950s there was even ongoing heroin epidemics, in addition to gang warfare, and of course racial inequality
I can confirm the gang warfare (at least in the 1970s and early 1980s) -- there were street gangs every few blocks and the police were (mostly) just considered the biggest and best armed gang -- and for good reason.
I didn't know Verdi Park[0] was called "Verdi Park" until the late 1990s. It was (but not any more) shaped like a triangle which is why I (incorrectly) thought it was actually named "Needle Park" But that was actually because of the heroin.
But all that's changed and has been for more than 20 years. NYC is the safest it's ever been.
Very easy to keep the parks 'beautiful' when you could just shift anyone undesirable to a prison, asylum, or skid row.
N.B. Littering also wasn't seen as a social failing in 50s America, so there's a bit of a juxtaposition there versus the contemporary reality.
Given the public policy of the 50s, if the Sacklers had been around, I would imagine a much higher death toll and much more damage to the public welfare than the opiate epidemic of the 2000s.
Probably would’ve put the Opium Wars to shame.
The random smattering of shoplifting is never reported, the unhoused man in a fit of rage yelling at passers-by is never filed with the police. But in the privacy of the voting booth, people will vote for more Flock cameras.
Instead of waving off concerns we should be addressing them better.
"the unhoused man in a fit of rage yelling at passers-by is never filed with the police"
Good. That's not a crime.
If we don't make better governance possible, we make Flock inevitable.
Just because much of the public think of the homeless as an eyesore that they don't want to see, and they make them briefly face uncomfortable realities, doesn't justify blanketing cities with cops and cameras.
"shooing them away constantly" is also not the only option, but the bare point is the sidewalk has a purpose and it isn't housing. If the government can't enforce that, what else can it not enforce? The unhoused person needs better options and incentives and there are people far more qualified than me to tell us what they are, but they all agree the street is about the worst place for them.
This speaks volumes on the state of the US.
It is actually true. In pretty much any other country this will be "people don't trust the government? Well, guess what? We does not care".
Meanwhile the police say (and act) that they aren't legally required to protect you [1].
The public is screaming for solutions, today you'll scream back at Flock, tomorrow there will be another "solution".
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
It probably loops back to better mental health care provision? But might also relate to provision of social housing? Or any number of things. These sorts of indicators can feed into a 'gross happiness quotient' to help us focus on improving society for all of us, not just feeding the greed of the billionaires which a lot of Western society seems to be subservient to right now.
You already came to the proper conclusion by just thinking about it for a few minutes. Let's just skip building out a surveillance state, and put that money directly into mental health & housing initiatives instead.
What is also missing here is that even if there is not criminal activity occurring, there is a general influx of highly anti-social behavior occurring that feeds in to the perception that higher rates of criminal activity occurring. This is very noticeable when you see people casually running red lights, driving without registration, yelling and screaming at people on the street or at the bus stop, and more. Even if I'm unlikely to be a victim of a crime, I don't feel safe when these anti-social behaviors are occurring, people are shoplifting and now going to CVS feels like going to a third-world country.
Framing this as right-wing propaganda I believe is a mistake and if you are a leftist it just loses elections for you because even if the folks who are concerned about crime levels are wrong (they're not though) the perception matters much more than reality. Denying the perception implies you deny the reality too and fewer people are going to vote in favor of candidates who tell them that what they see for themselves isn't happening.
Also your comment about "shrinking population" - you are referring to white Americans right? You're welcome to go look for yourself to see Trump's election results from the last election and see how he increased voter share across blacks and hispanics (and maybe more). How is this "shrinking population" happening when Trump also had the most votes of any president in American history? Maybe the population isn't shrinking in the way that you think.
If you want to know why Democrats are losing elections despite it being so obvious they shouldn't, your comments and rejection of the reality that many Americans face every day is precisely why. And before you try and accuse me of being some Trump sycophant I have voted for Obama twice, Clinton, Biden, and then Harris and will be voting for Sherrod Brown and Amy Acton here in Ohio. Denying reality because you think that the picture other Americans see must be some right-wing propaganda feed is confusing you. It's simply not accurate. Most Americans do not agree with your point of view. If the Democrats want to start winning elections they better come to grips with reality.
Even if these keyhole slices of reality were not being fed by right-wing propaganda (let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no right-wing propaganda at all), it's still not a reality that is applicable broadly across the country.
As an example we saw this during COVID. "Nobody around me that I know personally has died of COVID, therefore it doesn't exist, it's a hoax, or it's not a problem."
The example I gave is just an example. It's real no matter what the data says. When folks experience that, they experience it and it informs their opinions about the rates of crime and how safe an area is. I can tell you I believe the area I live in is safe, but with the introduction of these anti-social behaviors it is less safe regardless of the level of reported crime.
I think statistically the numbers show there is much less crime than there has been, but the statistics aren't perfect. For example, can you provide a report or measurement that measures how unsafe people feel when they walk by a pile of needles and have a homeless person screaming at them? If you can't, then you can clearly see there are flaws in the measurements that need to be addressed.
Chalking it up to right wing propaganda just doesn't help here and only serves to lose votes. I'm not "right-wing". I live in a city. I walk by this stuff. I don't feel safe of comfortable walking by these people. I also don't think my quality of life is improved when I have to go ask someone to unlock a case so I can buy a razor blade or something. If your metrics aren't capturing that then that would explain the disconnect you are seeing.
By all measurements and all sources of data available, violent crime has been absolutely plummeting since around 1991. Property crime is plummeting in direct parallel. Yet, nearly every year, a large majority of people (~66% or so) who are polled believe that crime is higher this year than it was last year.
We measure actual crime and we also poll people about their feelings. The large difference between these two doesn't mean that the measurement of actual crime is flawed. It just means that people are not informed, or if they are informed, they are letting their perceptions and feelings override the actual information. We shouldn't be making public policy based on how people feel.
A few sources:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-...
Part of the survey response you are seeing is that while crime itself may be down, citizens are uncomfortable and feel less safe (I provided an example that you can come and see for yourself any time of day) and I believe that helps to explain the discrepancy in the data you are seeing. How do you account for increases in crime when someone runs a red light (that's a crime) that simply is not reported? What am I going to do, call the local police? Are they going to actually do anything?
Data is only just one piece of the puzzle. Arguably not the most important in many circumstances. If the data is telling you crime is down, but people feel as though it is not, that doesn't necessarily mean "right-wing propaganda", and for someone who is inclined as you are to look at data you would think you wouldn't immediately draw such a conclusion and instead you would want to question your data collection process, the methods you are using, whether or not specific groups have stories they want to tell.
> You're not really talking about actual crime--you're talking about your own perception/feelings.
> By all measurements and all sources of data available, violent crime has been absolutely plummeting since around 1991. Property crime is plummeting in direct parallel.
> Yet, nearly every year, a large majority of people (~66% or so) who are polled believe that crime is higher this year than it was last year.
Maybe the majority is right and your data is wrong?
Why are you taking it so personally? It’s funny you say you’re leftwing, but this comment screams that you’re deep into the rabbit hole being pushed by the right that there should be no personal accountability for societal failures. The same rabbit hole that is pushing “uncomfy” topics out of schools so white kids don’t feel guilty about slavery.
Which, is honestly a great strategy. It’s an echo of the libertarian right that has fizzled out under Trump. Erase all of the wrongdoings of political conservativism because conservatives shouldn’t have to demonstrate self-reflection or empathy. That would get in the way of being conservative.
Because it pisses me off and it's stupid. I don't like this anti-social behavior. You think folks shouldn't be pissed off about it?
> It’s funny you say you’re leftwing
I'm not left-wing.
> but this comment screams that you’re deep into the rabbit hole being pushed by the right that there should be no personal accountability for societal failures.
If my comments mean I'm right-wing, you've found your problem. Your perception is really far to one direction and doesn't reflect how people actually think. It's kind of like an Internet view.
> The same rabbit hole that is pushing “uncomfy” topics out of schools so white kids don’t feel guilty about slavery.
I don't feel any guilt about slavery lol. I don't think anyone else needs to either.
> Why are you taking it so personally?
I was talking about the part of your comment where you literally say:
> It's my fault they did it I bet?
The whole point of my comment is an observation that for some reason conservatives, including yourself (despite your voting record?) have a visceral negative reaction to being informed about how the society they participate in has demons that they are - by virtue of being part of that society - partially responsible for. It doesn’t mean you have to feel guilty. I don’t feel guilty about things I do not have an inordinate amount of personal responsibility for, but I do feel guilty whenever I know that there’s something I could do but don’t - usually out of laziness or convenience. But I chalk that up to having a conscience.
"Someone disagrees with me, therefore I have a conscience and they don't". C'mon. That's boring.
Anyway, if you are asking me I'm conservative about some things, liberal about others. Feel free to ask me if you are curious. I'm anti-MAGA, but I'm also anti-DSA. I'm anti-woke and anti-Proud boys too. All of these groups of small-minded people are annoying and destructive and generally produce bad policy and the ways in which our society and government have become dysfunctional is in a large part because of people who identify with these groups.
Part of the reason for my response was due to the path the OP was already going down in their earlier comments. The drug addict on the corner yelling at people and walking with his dick out (yes that's real shit that happens where I live) doesn't show up in the data, yet it doesn't make me feel safe. Yet the OP seems to suggest that they have no reason for someone to not feel safe and it's all right-wing talking points. The next step is to make it my fault somehow. It's a very tried and true trope that I've seen over and over.
This counts for white collar crime too. And unethical behavior that’s technically legal because the scales of justice haven’t tipped yet, like predatory payday loans.
The social contract isn’t only being broken by petty criminals that do things like steal hardware tools, but also those who come in to your firm that you’ve worked for for 8 years and fired you without cause because they’re some Jack Welch acolyte.
Tools cost a few hundred bucks at most. Jack Welch bastards siphon millions or even billions in aggregate from the working class, one dismissal at a time.
But I'd disagree about but also those who come in to your firm that you’ve worked for for 8 years and fired you without cause. There are also plenty of people who don't do anything and siphon off value so if you wanted to use that example I think you have to use the thieves and bums who don't do anything too.
True, I forgot the whole category of rent-seekers. And grifters as well. Liars. Cheats. Snake-oil salesmen.
Boy this is fun.
It is not "unhinged propaganda from the right" for people living in those cities to wonder why the rate cannot be under 2.5 per 100,000 like it is in most European cities. Except for a few years in the early 2000s, London's rate has stayed below 2.5 for the last 250 years.
In my opinion apps like the Citizen[0] app are some of the worst offenders. They constantly bombard you with scary notifications, creating a constant environment of fear. With that app people are constantly aware of things that are happening in your general area without any real benefit of informing you. It turns the mildly-annoying-but-ignoreable mentally ill person on the street corner from someone that "scares" the 10 people around them into someone that scares 10k people in the area.
Oh, and Citizen is also directly integrated into Axon's Flock-like surveillance product.
[0]: https://citizen.com/
However, it appears that when I looked at the list of investors earlier, I've missed that Peter Thiel is among them. So yeah, there are clear political ties.
I’m not disagreeing with the trend, but it effects people differently.
PS Tracking crime stats is tough as property crime is inconsistently reported. This is why you often see criminologists take murder stats and only murder stats in their analysis and then estimate other crime stats back from that. Basically, once people realize the police won't investigate property crime, they stop reporting things that aren't insured.
The public perception of crime is persistently incorrect for many if not most people and this incorrect, emotional rather than evidence-based view of the world is unfortunately what drives political pressure.
Some of this is definitely the BBC's fault. I happened to be over at a friend's one morning and he had it on. It smelt just like right-wing media in the US with big stories on mega important topics like... shoplifting. The crime reporting just felt really amplified up.
Who's the "we" in this sentence? The people who want to keep cities crime-ridden? And why does your opinion matter more than that of the public? I thought these "we" were pro-democracy?
In the privacy of a voting booth, people will vote for Flock to feel safer and simply flooding the headlines will only work temporarily (in fact, there's a good chance Flock simply rebrands)
And of course the self-appointed illuminati who know better can't have people voting for what they want.
What exactly have they stopped?
Unless this happened a second time, it wasn't really reported on much until after it blew up on social media.
Since governments are run by people, this safetyism has become enshrined in law, typified by nonsense like criminalizing free-range parenting and mass surveillance.
https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/flock-cameras-help-iden...
https://www.wsbradio.com/news/local/cobb-police-credit-new-t...
There's some studies showing support but it's very hard to attribute cause to a crime rate that constantly fluctuates and has a myriad of causes
A minimum wage teenager, in a city of less than 50,000, on the tills during the breakfast rush, managed to positively ID the suspect, despite him wearing a mask and beanie, based on ambiguous CCTV photos, and decided to snitch. He was then detained within 11 minutes.
Versus
A federal agency tapped into CCTV or kiosk-cameras automatically ID'd him via facial recognition, and then established clean, admissible evidentiary trail to mask an unconstitutional investigative source.
My street is not "horrible", but everyone on my street would have loved to have a camera that recorded what happened. Even if we didn't get a working license plate number, it would have been useful to see what happened.
It doesn't have to be a "monster crime gap" to get people to vote for these things. It just takes some selfish idiots.
its one of the value function that makes it almost impossible to evaluate.
Lets imagine that catching someone in the Interpol list of wanted terrorists is a huge catch. You would expect the avg catch rate to be almost 0 but once one is caught the avg value of the system becomes very easy to justify.
Its the same idea as having photos of known terrorists in airports and train stations to see if guards recognise someone. But with the added benefit that the facial recognition should not miss them.
If the evaluation function is it costs X to run each day and we caught Y number of criminals who robbed phones worth Z > X then the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.
In reality, Flock cameras are bought for “law enforcement”, using taxpayer dollars (therefore free to the people making decisions) and enable both feelings of omniscience and the ability to stalk exes.
So ROI is pretty good when the I comes from someone else and the R is and random act of spying that makes the operators feel powerful.
Cynical, I know, but not empty cynicism I hope. All evidence leads me that way.
It doesn’t. I had a car stolen, called it in as they pulled away. I live a block from a Flock camera, 2 others apparently captured it. Car wasn’t intercepted, car was never recovered, no arrests were ever made. They could have put up scarecrows and it would have done as much good for a lot cheaper.
> the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.
It’s a bad evaluation function. A lot of the cost of crime isn’t directly the crime, it’s the economic deadweight of trying to deter the crime. Every car needs anti-theft parts, lots of people buy home security systems, armored cars to do bank drops, etc, all this stuff we pay for that exists solely to try to stop crime.
Flock would look great if it worked so well it made armored cars and car anti-theft obsolete. It won’t, but if it did the ROI would be crazy.
In San Fransico Car Breakins dropped almost immediately by 50% and 75% in the long run since Flock cameras were introduced
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/car-brea...
I found some news articles that seem to back up this stat. It wasn't all attributable to the cameras though. It also included targeted enforcement strategy with bait cars and what not.
it's there to keep the well behaving citizens in check.
very authoritarian at the core.