zlacker

>>amarch+(OP)
The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

>>Shank+Bj
>Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

Over the last hundred years, violent crime has droped sharply worldwide.

Over the last twenty years, it has fallen alot in developed countries such as Western Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea.

In the United Kingdom, both violent and property crime have gone down in the past two decades. The main exception is fraud, scams and cybercrime, which have increased.

Overall, crime, especially violent crime, is far lower now than it used to be.

So why does it not feel that way? Mostly because we are floded with news about every incident. It sticks in our heads and makes us beleive things are worse than they are. It is like air travel: whenever there is a major crash, the headlines fill up with every minor incident, even though flying has never been safer than it is today.

This is less about criminality and more about control.

There's definitely an argument to be made that things have gotten safer because we have more surveillance, but that argument also has many valid counter-arguments, and giving away your freedom for absolute law and order isn't the way to go in my opinion, especially when you use narratives like "crime in DC is at an all time high" like we've seen in the USA lately which is false. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-...

A balance of surveillance and freedom is necessary for a healthy society. (By surveillance in this context, I mean simple things like CCTVs, police patrols, not necessarily drag-nets, face rec, whatever mind you).

>>lemonc+La3
It doesnt take a lot for people to feel less safe in their environment. So for example violent muggings on the subway may be down, but if the subway is grimy, degraded, and there are young men hanging around, people get antsy. And then selling surveillance etc is an easy push to the voters.

I don't think its fair for someone to say, "well, its all scare mongering by the Daily Mail". They certainly have an interest in making the world seem scary, but the perception of danger is very strong regardless of what a tabloid rag says.

"Broken windows" policing, as tried under Mike Bloomberg in New York, is unfashionable in the US and the UK, and has led to abuses, but there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

>>kjells+qp3
I often think about how much of an effect things like "see it, say it, sort it" and "we do not tolerate abuse to our staff" and "you are being watched, cctv" and "thieves will be prosecuted" and "smartwater in operation" and "cash not left in tills overnight" in otherwise wealthy and low crime areas contributes to a feeling of unsafety and dog-eat-dog world

>>Rugnir+Bm4
It's possible that these kinds of signs actually have the reverse deterrent effect.

Criminals might be deterred by knowing that people definitely get arrested in a certain location, because, say, they've seen it themselves, or because they see a presence of law enforcement, or because they innately sense its a high status environment where law enforcement response is to be expected.

A criminal seeing a sign might conclude that the sign is actually telling them that no immediate law enforcement response is likely.

For example, in London, you dont see CCTV signs in the shops along Sloane Street (super high end retail) but you definitely see them in Primark (very ordinary store, like US Kohls).

Wonder if there are any studies on this?