zlacker

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.

>>happym+(OP)
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.

>>Saline+s4
> 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.

>>happym+(OP)
> 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.

>>Aurorn+Pi
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.

>>happym+W8
Large parts if London are just forests, unlike Paris which is one of the densest places on earth. So of course density of population affects camera per sqm: you tend to place more cameras where there are people. This is also why I said that coverage is even a better measure: "what are the odds that I'm being filmed, now".

>>Saline+s4
> London has 100% coverage for instance.

What?

> Large parts if London are just forests

What?