- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
CEO lies. We quote the lies. We are the media. Seriously though - why does everybody hate the media?
While research suggests that today’s video doorbells do little to prevent crime, Siminoff believes that with enough cameras and with AI, Ring could eliminate most of it.
We’ve been over this with CCTV in the UK. It doesn’t reduce much crime, only vehicle break ins and property. Everything else is unaffected.
It works if you have a fair and effective police force to back it up. See China; massively surveilled but incredibly safe and petty-crime free.
Or have a society structured such that most people’s basic needs are met which drastically reduces impulse crime
That’s absolutely a massive factor, but China must feel there’s some value in mass surveillance or they wouldn’t do it.
And like, China still has poor people, and people who do try less-ethical means of making money. Scam call centres are still a problem as they’re less traceable, so I still feel there’s some credit in the idea that cameras on the streets keep the streets safer. If you mugged someone for their phone in China, there’s a 0% you won’t be caught, so people don’t even think about it.
We have pretty heavy surveillance and police force here in america, what we do lack are people’s needs being met. More police funding does not equal reduction in crime.
Your police force serves the bourgeoisie, China’s serves the nation and the people. It’s not the funding that matters, it’s the direction they’re being pointed.
Point is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Regardless of the political economy they’re in, cops are a cure method. Addressing the material circumstances that lead people to crime is the prevention method.
I don’t think the CCTV has anything to do with any of the impulse crime being reduced. There’s consistent studies showing it does absolutely jack shit to reduce impulse crimes. It doesn’t even reduce shoplifting and it doesn’t reduce violent crime either.
Connecting the two together is just not necessary. The other stuff would reduce the crime without the cctv. What the studies do find however is that people feel safer with the cctv than without it, regardless of whether they actually are.
I guess I might question if western studies might not apply to a very different Chinese society, but that’s interesting to hear.
From what I’ve heard the mass-surveilled China of today is much safer than the less technologically savvy China of 15 or 20 years ago, but that could definitely just be a perception thing as you say; I’ve never seen actual crime stats. Of course other factors are involved too regardless of surveillance.
The thing you have to understand about cctv and crime is that cctv does not affect crime that is not being undertaken in a rational way. When some dude decides on the spot to steal a phone, or commit SA, or punch you the face, all of these things are occurring with an impulse that is not rational in the first place, the opportunity is presenting itself and the person is simply going for it.
If there is no reasoned thought into undertaking the crime then there is no deterrent either. It is social and cultural things that reduce crime primarily. The vast majority of these kinds of crimes come from the poorest for a reason.
the opportunity is presenting itself and the person is simply going for it.
But CCTV limits the opportunity, no? If I’m walking down a dark street in London there’s an easy opportunity to steal my phone and get away with it. In Shanghai the opportunity isn’t the same because the thief will get caught if they try it. Same reason why that kind of crime is more likely anywhere in the world to take place on a quieter street at night than a high street in broad daylight.
Honestly I’ll go looking for studies because it just doesn’t compute to me that surveillance doesn’t work, and if it doesn’t work why would states like China invest in such extensive networks? Interesting topic though, if you’ve got any recommended reading I’d appreciate it!
You’re overestimating the abilities of CCTV and you’re also overestimating the piggies. Case in point: a long time ago I had my vehicle broken into and all my tools stolen when I went to dinner with the family. Vehicle was in full view of a CCTV system and there was a “security guard” patrolling the parking lot. Dinner was maybe 90 minutes at most. Security guy “didn’t see or hear anything”. Cops couldn’t be bothered to show up.
When the oink patrol finally got around to reviewing the footage they couldn’t resolve any discerning information. Nothing ever came of it. Nobody was ever investigated. My tools, including all the unique, hand-made, forged tools I made myself were never recovered. Just gone.
Outting myself a bit, but it takes maybe 30 seconds to break a side window and steal everything inside a vehicle. If you’re wearing non-descriptive clothing and any kind of mask you’re probably never going to be identified. You give way to much credit to the powers that be. They do not give a fuck about you. CCTV is just another weapon they use against you. It will never be used to help you. It will only ever be used to ensure you don’t organize. Your phone getting stolen? They don’t have the personnel to review that footage. Organizing a union? They have people on overtime to review that footage.
Like Awoo said, it does not deter petty, irrational crime. Irrational actors are not thinking about whether or not there are CCTV cameras. It also doesn’t deter coordinated, rational crime. Rational actors are aware of the surveillance and act accordingly. In either case, the CCTV system is irrelevant. Which leads to…
why would states … invest in such extensive networks?
Like I said: because it is a weapon. It is not for your benefit. It is not to deter crime. You and I are the targets. Anyone that gets uppity about the state is the target.
If you’re worried about crime, ensure that people have their needs met so they don’t have to do crimes to survive, not whether or not they are properly surveilled.
<3
why would states … invest in such extensive networks?
Because the cops tell their inquiries that if they had this tool they would be better. And the state listens to them. The cops are wrong, but it doesn’t matter because they genuinely believe it will help them.
It’s as simple as that.
But CCTV limits the opportunity, no?
Not when the crime is not being performed rationally. You’re describing an impulse crime and the studies showed zero impact on it.
china’s lack of crime is mainly from it’s poverty alleviation, and has gone down significantly in the past decade alongside poverty itself (coincidence? i think not) but they do use a lot of cameras on the streets to enforce traffic laws. i found the streets there to be a lot slower and safer than any city here in
Amerikan roads in the last five years have become completely lawless
yeah and even when they aren’t, instead of cameras being used to ensure traffic laws are followed we have unstable pigs with guns
The unstable pigs with guns are the worst traffic offenders near me
real
If your area is like mine, after 2020 the police decided they wouldn’t do any of the few things that actually make people safer like enforce traffic laws out of spite for everyone that got mad at them. I wouldn’t mind if they just disappeared completely but they are still there to harass and abduct people.
What the lack of dialectical materialism does to a society!
I guess it’s time to learn how to break these fucking things without getting identified.
So he’s going to jail or what?
see this is why you should be wary of cameras and cloud data you can’t control
burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it burn it
When your neighbours doorbell snitches on you for being Antifa woktivist
