Comment by Cider9986
12 hours ago
>Hey, at least in Mexico surveillance tech people might wake up to their family chopped to pieces. One can hope, anyway.
I don't think this is a good thing. The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
I am curious what Mexico should do long term to reduce crime. The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
Crime in Mexico is down, and continues to trend that way. The homicide rate, for instance, is 22% down from 2024 to 2025.
Mexico is very much in it's New York mafioso days of the 80s. Still endemic, entrenched, and powerful, but losing ground and slowly legitimizing. The reason it's so slow is more to due with high rates of corruption in the government (local to federal) and justice system and the cultural effect it's had on the general populace.
I feel like a lot of this in any country is turning criminal activity into institutionalized predatory business practices. It turns loan shark slaves into economic serfs. Homicide goes down and suicide goes up.
I disagree with your premise, but Homicide seems objectively worse than suicide.
1 reply →
Every time someone mentions crime someone inevitably comes along to mention how according to the completely legitimate crime rates reported by the authorities, crime is disappearing and nothing should be done.
If public perception was the only metric, and gaming it was an option, why would they have let the number get so high in the first place?
They look bad, their boss looks bad, the paperwork for each individual crime begets a massive, impossible to hide conspiracy, and even nations struggle to execute on multi-year plans - individuals aren't going to be better at controlling multiple lower levels to hit each step of their plan, year after year
The weapons flow from USA doesn't help.
US can afford to have militarized police with armoured cars. But the combination of drugs, poverty and weapons is very dangerous
> I am curious what Mexico should do long term to reduce crime.
I would imagine that the #1 priority might be to shut down the "Iron River."
The Iron River is the limitless supply of firearms from the USA to Mexican cartels. It is very well documented, and yet we rarely hear about it.
"Iron River" - you're joking, right?
These cartels can:
- effectuate mass synthesis of illicit substances in commercial laboratories
- handle massive intercontinental logistics
- build semi-submersible boats
- hire and kidnap radio engineers to help with communications and electronic warfare
but gee, they just can't figure out how to buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearm designs - that's just too much for them?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/atf-seizes-thousands-illegal-...
https://texasborderbusiness.com/thousands-of-trafficked-guns...
https://www.stl.news/atf-seizes-illegal-firearms-bound-mexic...
2 replies →
Uhhh why would they do that when they can just buy them for super cheap at industrial scale from the US?
And yes the solution to things like organized crime is always just a continuous chipping away and adding friction where you can.
Not giving them massive amounts of cheap, high quality firearms seems like a meaningful goal.
32 replies →
I don't think crime can always be fought through democratic processes. What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)? Any "processes" are doomed to fail, as populace would vote to feed their families.
Wait are we discussing crime as in what a country defines as crime within its own borders, or crime as in “I’m a bigger nation than you and will make you comply with my rules”
I meant mass surveillance. I realize I phrased that badly.
> What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)?
Invade and, this time, provide a way for the population to earn a honest living. "Let them eat cake" just doesn't work out.
"Provide a way" -- what if it's way too expensive, even for a huge country? And populace just doesn't want it (e. g. it goes against sacred texts). And there are no infrastructure nor institutions to build upon. It's close to impossible. And the populace would see us only as a provider of goods.
And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.
4 replies →
> The U.S. used to have a bigger problem with organized crime, but it has been subdued before mass surveillance was an option.
I thought it was credit cards and electronic payments that subdued organized crime (or at least moved it into the realm of the white collar, lawyer-facilitated “legal” crimes through official channels), which greatly reduces the violence component.
>The crime is detrimental to innocent people, and although mass surveillance should not be the answer, it can only be fought through democratic processes.
Mass surveillance is detrimental to innocent people and to democratic processes.
Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
Yep once the system is set up, no matter how good its intentions, the government will get a group of bad people who then use said monitoring system to entrench their power.
The article references “public panic buttons” and how
> There is active participation by the citizenry, where they connect their private security devices to the command centers run by the state
You don’t really believe anybody using a “public panic button” or hooking up their own alarm system to law enforcement deserves the worst fate imaginable. That’s a little extreme.
What are we even trying to accomplish here? It sounds like individuals in parts of Mexico are trying to protect themselves.
There has to be some compromise between ideals and reality. If you reflexively tell people “you can’t help the cops for the sake of democracy,” they’re gonna throw out the democracy part and keep the cops part.
Maybe a short stint in jail in the case of misconduct, but the worst fate imaginable? Chopped up in a suitcase?
That's not even close to their main product, who cares?
You went from "license plate readers, stationary cameras, and panic buttons abound" in the article to "panic buttons", feels a bit dishonest.
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable. These are tools tailor-made to destroy democracies, we should treat people behind them like we treat ISIS.
Just so you know, I and many people like me will automatically align with whoever opposes you due to this rhetoric. Whatever it takes to ensure you and those who agree with you never, ever get any foothold in the discourse, let alone power. You are writing extremist and very dangerous things. It’s vile rhetoric and in a just world would be flagged to oblivion.
And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
8 replies →
Mexico has a weak Federal gov but more strong local states....
I did not use to be this way, before the revolution it was the opposite.
History wise, started changing in the 1930s as far as illegal drug trafficking groups wrestling local gov, state gov, and fed gov away from law and order missions.