I think its highly relevant when we have people pushing the faulty logic narrative that the UK is China and using CCTV as a measurement for their case.
UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this.
> Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse.
Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.
How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.
Heavily monitored London, freedom America.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-...
Oh wait, Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km. Narrative.
> Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km
You listed extremely dense cities. Of course they have more cameras per square.
This isn’t a narrative violation, it’s basic math.
I think its highly relevant when we have people pushing the faulty logic narrative that the UK is China and using CCTV as a measurement for their case.
UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this.
> Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse.
Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.
Paris and Seoul are much denser than London. A better measure is the cameras/habitant or the % of coverage. London has 100% coverage for instance.
> better measure is the cameras/habitant
How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.
1 reply →
> London has 100% coverage for instance.
What?
> Large parts if London are just forests
What?