The issue, of course, isn't how cameras can be used to help apprehend criminals. It's that they can be abused by people who have access to them, in ways we haven't even imagined yet. People don't trust that appropriate safeguards are in place, and it's not clear how to defend against abuses, or that it's even possible. In a society that supposedly prioritizes liberty, privacy, and innocence until proven guilty, such technology should be treated with maximum suspicion.

> Houston Police Chief Noe Diaz said three cameras near the reported attempted kidnapping of a third-grade student had been cut down before investigators could use them to identify the suspect’s vehicle.

That's such a weird way to phrase it. The cameras were, presumably, cut down before the incident?

> You don't think this would have ANY impact of police being able to apprehend the thief?

Speaking as a San Francisco resident: No. SF cops give nearly zero shits about recovering stolen property.

Speaking as a USian: Even if it did lead the cops right to the car and provided unimpeachable evidence that what the footage showed was a theft, rather than something legal, I still don't want these electronic mass-surveillance systems to be deployed. Dragnet surveillance is plainly unacceptable.

If -somehow- we can magically build such surveillance systems to be completely unable to provide data that's unrelated to a search warrant or other such court order, I'd reconsider my stance. However, building such a system is simply impossible.

This would only work for a few months until car thieves start having a habit of mounting different plates.

Obviously the perfect crime is harder to do in an orwellian society. But happiness and freedom too so nothing good is gained from that.

Suppose there was a pre-pardoned, unaccountable, masked band of brownshirts in Temu youtuber military wannabe gear, stalking the streets with impunity, terrorizing people who aren't white, holding down American citizens and emptying guns into their backs. Suppose they have been given access to every database that the US has at its disposal, as well as sweeping powers to demand data from anyone they choose.

Suppose Flock's license agreement additionally said that they could give data to anyone they wanted to, as it does.

Suppose the leader of these brownshirts frequently talks about his opponents, protestors, etc., as enemies of the state and domestic terrorists.

How great do you feel about this nonexistent mystery technology of yours now?

This is a myopic view of the situation. Suppose you had $100M to spend. What would lower crime more:

1. Helping to shelter the homeless, deal with mental health issues and make sure people are properly fed.

2. Build a mass surveillance network at the expense of all of the above.

Regardless, mass surveillance is far worse than any amount of car theft.

Abortion is not a 90/10 issue. Jaywalking is a more accurate analogy. When you turn normal people into "criminals", the law ceases to have meaning.

There is one independent national study ( https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/independent-study-vehicle-t... ) which indicates vehicle thefts fell 11% following a flock installation.

However, the vast majority of vehicle thefts self-resolve ( 85% of passenger vehicle thefts are recovered, a third within one day ). Flock's apparent impact was that vehicles came back on average 1/4 day sooner; it did not appear to impact the rate at which they were recovered, so your instinct would be incorrect.

Additionally, vehicle theft has been steadily decreasing year-over-year since COVID, and it's possible/likely that the effects seen in the study were continuations of that trend rather than anything attributable to flock. The paper even says as much -- that the effect began in the months preceding flock installation.

Intuitively, you'd think that flock cameras would help a lot. I would think so too! But at least in my small-to-mid-sized city, they don't noticeably help at all with any kind of crime.

https://ij.org/how-flock-is-trying-to-take-credit-for-the-po...