Comment by squigz

4 months ago

Constantly surveilling your citizens without cause doesn't strike you as an obvious red line?

I'm deeply skeptical of surveillance and convinced it will be misused, more and more over time as all sides get used to it and the complaints become less, or less fundamental and more against something specific while not questioning the tech as such.

Still, I'm torn whenever I walk to the city center (Bavarian big city that is not Munich) and see how many rental bikes and rental e-scooters can be found thrown into the river that runs through the city. Or public trash cans that were actually put deep into the earth, with concrete too, lie broken with lots of earth and the long metal pipe with concrete attached because some people spent considerable effort to destroy public infrastructure. Or somebody must have jumped hard and repeatably on a weak point of a public bench, which has very thick wood and thick steel screws, but they still managed to destroy it.

I want those people to be found, I'm very angry. This is a frequent occurrence. If that means more surveillance, I would not oppose. I'm tired of seeing this happen again and again and again.

The city had to start using trashcans that look more and more like little war bunkers. They can't do anything for the bikes and scooters though, making them too heavy to lift and throw into the water is obviously not possible. Police do patrol, but they can't be everywhere all the time.

For illustration: Two bikes of a public bike rental service found in the river. They are not old, all of them are new, but this is how they look after a few days or weeks in the river:

https://img.mittelbayerische.de/ezplatform/images/4/4/8/8/40...

Divers are called regularly to retrieve bikes, scooters, and other big items thrown into the city's river: https://images.nordbayern.de/image/contentid/policy:1.132184...

  • It's almost assured the police know and have interacted with those committing vandalism already. Really the question you need to ask yourself is should said vandals should be beat to death or enslaved in prison forever.

    More cameras doesn't fix this kind of crime.

  • Surveillance in the end is a tool, like a gun, which can be used for good or bad.

    I doubt any more effort will be made against vandalism for a long time that reaquires to increase surveillance. The cameras and microphones will remain, though.

    Edit: I live in a dictatorship. State surveillance and policing has helped with vandalism. But the drawbacks are obvious and nefarious. I would take more vandalism in a mediocre democracy any day.

    • Uhm... see my first sentence? I'm aware, and I said so.

      Obviously I pointed to a conflict (of my interests), that's why I said I'm torn. If I want the second (less vandalism) I'll have to give up at least some of the first (freedom from surveillance while in public places).

  • "I want those people to be found, I'm very angry. This is a frequent occurrence. If that means more surveillance ..."

    No, it doesn't necessarily mean surveillance ... or, at least, not automated surveillance.

    Your wishes (which I share) can be fulfilled with human bodies (possibly police) on the street deterring these bad actions.

  • The majority if this vandalism is most likely done by teens.

    I still remember my last years in school. Around the turn of the millennium, when the country had an economic down turn. The school building was a bunch of containers. Freezing in the winter, sweating in the sommer. Society saw nothing but a burden in us. The teachers constantly said "no one is waiting for you out there!"

    Nothing has changed since then. There is no respect for child care. There is no respect for school children. (Walk into a school and try not to drip over "temporary" support beams.) There will be no "Sondervermögen" for Schools.

    You can't fix a social problem - that some recent the society they have to live in and lash out via doing dumb thinks - via technology.

  • Ah yes, nothing like bit of lite STASI from keeping the rental bikes and the trash cans from being vandalised ... ... ...

No. Roughly half our community wanted to keep the cameras. And we're as blue/progressive as it gets. Whatever else it is, it isn't "a red line".

That is not the same thing as me saying I think the cameras were a good tradeoff.

  • The wealthy people keep the poor down, then having this subpopulation that acts in messed up ways causes crime, which causes the wealthy to accept things like surveillance to "protect themselves" and continually cedes to more authoritarian policies. The middle class is the social base of fascism.

    The way out is to turn on the rich and produce a more economically equal society.

People live in fear, and these things help police close cases quickly.

I served on a jury where a young woman slipped on ice while crossing the street and was run over by a negligent driver who was fleeing what he thought was the police, because he was on probation and not supposed to drive. With private surveillance, red light cameras and some other sources, they were able to track down the vehicle and apprehend the individual within 45 minutes of the event. Prior to that, much more primitive version of that technology being available, there would no chance of that case being solved.

Personally, I think this technology is dangerous, lacks effective governance, is operated without transparency, and is prone to abuse. Events of late highlight how different jurisdictional boundaries at the city, state and federal levels can be in conflict. But the technology is not going away -- imo it's time to govern it and limit the inter-jurisdictional data sharing.