Cameras are great. Especially with diverse ownership.

Police can walk about, ask or order (warrant) for footage.

A network of AI powered cameras linked to the hive mind controlled by real life super mega evil corp inc run by real life super villains... not so great.

Also the 4th amendment is a thing. Mosaic theory is a thing.

Enough of these flocking cameras.

We found that by putting all humans in cages with no ability to contact eachother or interact with the outside world crime fell to almost zero.

> There seems to be a real reduction in property crime in some places with cameras. I don’t think it’s realistic to take these down everywhere.

And the guy at the Honda dealer says I should buy a CRV.

A warrant is better than no warrant, but:

A warrant requirement is not a reasonable bandaid to consider allowing mass surveillance. There should be no mass surveillance, only targeted surveillance.

A warrant requirement makes sense for something like the locations of customers on cellular networks, because, although it should be improved, it's been built into the tech.

When you make the optional choice to create mass surveillance, safeguards do not make it acceptable.

Plenty of places have very low crime without mass surveillance.

Key word: some. Look at London. We should not be giving up our liberties to corporations that would sell their soul for profit just so we can prevent property crime.

I can't speak for everyone, but I've lived in countries where there are cameras everywhere, e.g. Singapore, China, where crime is almost zero compared to the US, and it is incredibly safe to be anywhere at almost any hour. Actual criminals are usually caught and apprehended very quickly. That part feels nice, that it is vanishingly unlikely to get mugged just for going out to get food at 2am.

What can make them suck is authorities abusing them to do enforce arbitrary, unpredictable ideals that are not part of the law, incompetent authorities targeting non-criminals and peaceful protesters, or traumatizing the wrong person because of an incorrect AI face match.

I wonder if that just displaces the crime to a different area, though. Depends on how organised the perps are. Although complete coverage would probably reduce it.

You're conflating "any camera" with cameras that are attached to a centralized data aggregation system.

Do you have any evidence that the massive centralized aggregation has had a real reduction in crime versus cameras that are locally controlled?

or are you just spewing poorly thought out horseshit in defense of the destruction of our liberty?

(though even this is through the borderline insane, and staunchly anti-american lens that a reduction in property crime definitively warrants the destruction of privacy and liberty)

>We're going to have supervision. Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there's a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.

-Larry Ellison

This has been the plan of the oligarchs for a while.

Property crime skyrocketed during COVID largely because of intentional decisions around policing. We can easily police property crime without ubiquitous surveillance.

Most Americans know that a small reduction in property crime is not worth trading for constant surveillance by private corporations and the entire government.

[flagged]