yes, people tend to act differently. not the people they're trying to afect, just random people just minding their business. but it is not an effective deterrent to things like "violent crime".

• Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime.

• Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/asset_upload...

I thought he asked for evidence?

There is very solid evidence it wasn't the cameras.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/ has a chart of the car breakins.

It shows the drop starting in September of 2023.

https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/your-sfpd/policies/depart...

> Starting on March 19, 2024, Flock Safety began installing ALPR cameras in various strategic locations across San Francisco. This rollout is expected to take place over the next 90 days.

In other words, the cameras were added where I've annotated the chart with a black rectangle here: https://imgur.com/a/i00Gna0

To my knowledge, Flock doesn't have a time machine offering.

Sorry, this is russell's teapot falacy. "the burden of proof lies with the person making an unfalsifiable claim, rather than on others to disprove it"

If there is evidence this is related to cameras, then the onus is on companies making these cameras and claims to provide the data. Not on others to prove that they don't stop crime.

There's a reason you always start with the null hypothesis.