From: Christopher Whipple (crw@well.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 1970 - 16:14:59 MST
I'm jumping into this thread halfway through - but I think you might
find this article interesting:
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/
modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=297
Illumination Better Than Cameras For Crime Prevention
Posted by Ernest Miller on Friday, August 16 @ 09:26:28 EDT Privacy
The BBC News looks at a new report from the British government that has
determined that video surveillance, aka CCTV, is not as useful in the
fight against crime as was previously thought (CCTV 'not a crime
deterrent'). After studying nearly two dozen UK and US CCTV programs,
the study can only concude that "CCTV reduces crime to a small degree."
According to the BBC, "A second report on the impact of street lighting
considered 13 schemes, and concluded that better illumination could be
a cheap way of cutting illegal activity, especially in crime hotspots."
It is not that video surveillance can't be useful in certain locations
and situations, but "crime-prevention" schemes that recommend placing
surveillance cameras everywhere in public says more about government
officials' desire to invade the public's privacy then their desire to
reduce crime. One might also note how expensive these systems are. The
UK is spending 75% of its crime prevention funds on a program that only
reduces crime to a small degree. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Not that this hasn't been pointed out before (again from the BBC) (CCTV
'fails to reduce crime'). [via Zem: Weblog]
------
Also; something I found a few years back when webcams were just
emerging - software on the windows (98?) platform - motion-activated
video recording. Highly recommended for paranoid college students
bringing massive amounts of tech into a dorm room. :)
Ubiquitous surveillance reminds me of Diamond Age.
-crw.
On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 03:02 PM, Sally Pitts wrote:
>
>
>
>> From: spike66 <spike66@attbi.com>
>> Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>> To: extropians@extropy.org
>> Subject: Re: surveillance helps the innocent.
>> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:33:39 -0700
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spike66 wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we develop the tech to bag any crime that can be
>>>> recognized from an external view, such as robbery,
>>>> murder, mugging, rape, etc, then poor neighborhoods
>>>> could be cleansed of these plagues. If they were, the
>>>> rents would skyrocket, displacing the poor...
>>>>
>>>
>>> gts wrote: While I do not in principle endorse increased gov't
>>> surveillance...
>>>
>> Roger that. The government could not afford what I have in mind
>> anyway, which is all privately-owned surveillance infrastructure.
>>
>>> Should it come to pass: wealthy localities will be the first to
>>> implement such hi-tech surveillance because they are most able to
>>> afford it.
>>>
>> It has already come to pass. Palo Alto is wealthy, it has a great
>> deal
>> of privately owned surveillance equipment in place. But there is
>> seldom
>> anything to watch there, they have so many cops per square inch the
>> perps go elsewhere.
>>
>>> This will increase the gap in rents between wealthy neighborhoods
>>> and poor neighborhoods in favor of wealthy neighborhoods.
>>>
>> Right but remember, in Palo Alto almost no one rents. That place is
>> for owners. In nearby East Palo Alto, nearly everyone rents.
>>
>>> The poor
>>> will be able to pay those new higher rents because they will, like
>>> the
>>> rich, have higher real incomes then as a result of the reduction in
>>> crime. -gts
>>>
>> OK, I follow your argument and I want to agree. Looks to me
>> like the currently-available webcams are a good investment in both
>> good and bad neighborhoods, so privacy schmivacy, we should be
>> putting this in place. Everywhere. I haven't yet. I want to plug
>> into
>> a network of some sort, so that my cam could be used by anyone
>> who wants to track the location of anyone who should pass by. spike
>>
>
>
> I am totally for webcam surveillance (and am looking into doing
> something for my condo complex). IMO the ultimate bedrock for
> near-100% surveillance of our urban areas is that it promotes
> stability, and stability attracts capital. It was indeed the strong
> federal govt and teh stability it gave that attracted a lot of capital
> to the USA in the last 100 years.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:53 MST