?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Feren's dART gallery Previous Previous Next Next
Gosh, what a surprise: Nanny states don't really work - Paint It Black
Living the American dream one heartbreaking piece at a time
feren
feren
Gosh, what a surprise: Nanny states don't really work
In a recently released study, spy (I'm sorry, surveillance) cameras in public don't actually reduce violent crime in San Francisco. Further, at best all it does is push petty crime (vandalism, larceny) a few hundred feet away from the camera.

So, crime is unchanged or moved -- and not eliminated.

Tags: ,
Current Location: Tower of Fail
Current Mood: apathetic apathetic
Current Music: radio.hiof.no

7 thoughts or Leave a thought
Comments
posicat From: posicat Date: January 12th, 2009 06:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
Maybe they WILL stop the stupid people, keep them off the streets, and the smarter criminals will be free and breed. At least it might help the gene pool.
varro From: varro Date: January 12th, 2009 08:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm less worried about the lack of privacy in public spaces as wiretapping and warrantless searches.

The interesting thing is that the people who don't really like surveillance in public places is the cops - see what happens the next time you videotape a cop.

There's one BART cop in the Bay Area who wishes people didn't have cell phone cameras - they caught him killing a man other police had put on his stomach. There's no way he's going to use the "I feared for my life" defense cops always use in this situation...
feren From: feren Date: January 12th, 2009 09:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
[I'm less worried about the lack of privacy in public spaces as wiretapping and warrantless searches.]

It all blends into one giant invasion of my rights, to me.

[people who don't really like surveillance in public places is the cops - see what happens the next time you videotape a cop.]

You've been watching my "Photography is not a crime" posts, so you know I've noticed this too. (Obligatory Disclaimer: I know a lot of cops, I respect the profession and see their point of view -- to an extent.) The corollary I offer is that the authorities that usually have the strongest allergic reaction to being taped are usually the ones that the public should worry about anyway.
gatcat From: gatcat Date: January 13th, 2009 01:06 am (UTC) (Link)
>The report raises the idea of using the program more aggressively, perhaps integrating cameras with gunshot detection devices called ShotSpotters or buying so-called smart cameras that are capable of sounding an alarm if a gun is brandished, a fence is jumped, or a person falls down.

Why can't they just start locking us in our houses when we're not at work/school? It would solve so many problems.

feren From: feren Date: January 13th, 2009 02:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
GAT-1138: Return to your dwelling unit immediately.
loboguara From: loboguara Date: January 13th, 2009 10:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
That's what I just mentioned in my other reply. Turns out most of those shotspotter things only detect rounds by the signature supersonic crack. Which plain 9mm does, etc.

But. .45 ACP is subsonic. Heavy 9mm subsonic is subsonic. Shotguns are subsonic. It won't detect those.

Boston's will, and it also detects firecrackers, thunder, and snow. (?), which makes tens of thousands of false alarms. And all it did was tell them that there's thousands of rounds fired per year in parts of a city where stuff is entirely banned.

Good use of money, all that.
loboguara From: loboguara Date: January 13th, 2009 10:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
But, but, Chicago has those amazing camera/gunshot detection sensors all over...!...that....don't do anything to stop the gangstas from shooting the victim in their drive-bys.

And they only detect supersonic rounds, not .45 ACP or other subsonics. Oops.

But it cost a lot! And is shiny and they can talk about it in press conferences!
7 thoughts or Leave a thought