Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

degggendorf t1_j0bmgvx wrote

Reply to comment by Beezlegrunk in Providence to install 60 more license plate cameras by Beezlegrunk

> UK-style public surveillance

These cameras are pointed at the road to capture still images of cars, while CCTV in the UK is largely video footage focused on people (though they do have license plate recognition as well).

Providence has 85 cameras; 1 for every 2,200 people. London has half a million government-operated cameras; one for every 18 people. In the UK as a whole, it's 1 camera for every 32 people.

In the UK, the average person on a typical day will be captured on camera 70 times. In Providence you would be captured 0 times (unless you're sticking your head out the back of the car by the plate as you pass a camera, I guess).

These cameras delete their images after 30 days. There is no time limit in the UK.

I don't think it's helpful to use misrepresentation as a tool for criticism...how about we criticize them for what they actually are?

source

> in the final two weeks of eight years in office

Are you wishing he did it sooner? I'm not sure I follow your intention.

Flock Safety didn't even exist as a corporation when Elorza was originally elected, so I'm not sure what you would have wanted him to do...create his own tech startup to get cameras on streets earlier?

Besides, this all started with a pilot program turned on in September and kicked off six months earlier, so it's not like he just up and decided to install these yesterday.

13

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j0bvqy9 wrote

I think there's plenty of concerns about abuse, will they actually stick to the limits on use/retention that are supposed to be in place, how this relatively new company will safeguard the data, whether any long term pattern tracking is included (i.e. they could easily be deleting every photo after 30 days like they claim, but the information from the photo is retained elsewhere)

Plenty of people have plenty of reason to neither trust the police, nor the private company being given a tremendous amount of information. There's also a question of national organizations having access not subject to the same regulations as local police. No Such Agency and what not.

All that being said, I really don't care. I also think privacy is a dead concept and, while I love the heck out of the ACLU and send them money every year, they're like those Japanese soldiers on islands in the Pacific who don't realize they lost the war years ago. I admire their moxie, but the bell can't be un-rung and I think there's enough probable and likely benefits where this isn't the thing worth getting upset about with policing.

8

degggendorf t1_j0bxpr2 wrote

> I think there's plenty of concerns about abuse, will they actually stick to the limits on use/retention that are supposed to be in place, how this relatively new company will safeguard the data, whether any long term pattern tracking is included (i.e. they could easily be deleting every photo after 30 days like they claim, but the information from the photo is retained elsewhere)

Oh for sure, absolutely...that's my point. Handwaving "it's like the UK so it's bad" is inaccurate and pointless. Let's talk specifics about how the system in our state works, how it should work, and what risks there are.

> Plenty of people have plenty of reason to neither trust the police, nor the private company being given a tremendous amount of information.

100%

6

Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0c5t4x wrote

>"It’s like the UK so and it’s bad”

Fixed that for you. Nice try, though …

−8

Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0bwrms wrote

Jorge, is that you …?

−7

degggendorf t1_j0bxbx5 wrote

Why would the outgoing mayor be urging you to criticize their program?

3

Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0c5bc3 wrote

There was no criticism — just the usual defense of the status quo …

−7

degggendorf t1_j0c6rlj wrote

Where do you see me defending anything? Or are you saying that you're not criticizing, you're just defending the status quo?

All I did was call out your nonsense comparison, and question your logic with the timing comment.

I didn't present an opinion on the matter at all here, unless you count my allusion to it deserving criticism for what it actually is.

3

Beezlegrunk OP t1_j0c7k26 wrote

>”urging you to criticize”

>”I didn't present an opinion on the matter at all”

Pick one (we don’t care which) — but being mealy-mouthed isn’t helping anyone but you …

−3

degggendorf t1_j0c7ucu wrote

Those are compatible statements.

I didn't give an opinion, but want you to give your opinion based on facts.

1

[deleted] t1_j0cbrqe wrote

[removed]

−5

degggendorf t1_j0ce7nf wrote

> And the most important “fact” about a huge increase in public surveillance in Providence is exactly how closely it replicates the system in the UK …?

Idk, is it? That seemed to be your main point, which is what I was calling out.

>Here’s a fact for you: When people describe you as being “on the spectrum,” they’re not talking about wavelengths of light …

Yep, there's your trademark move...resorting to name-calling instead of simply explaining your opinions.

4