What's the point of a surveillance system if you are not going to use it to solve property crimes? The biggest issues with liveability in a lot of "nice" US cities like SF are property crime and law enforcement choosing to go after "easy" white collar crime like traffic and parking violations instead of the blue collar crimes that affect safety and property.
* The privacy/safety tradeoff is different between the two kinds of crimes. There's a distinction between computers passively collecting data and humans actively investigating (and stopping) cars.
* Violent crimes are the local enforcement priority, and if you give police tools to clear non-priority crimes, you are changing their incentive structure.
* The link between the car and the crime is especially tenuous in routine property crime; it's just as likely we'd be stopping people's mothers and grandparents as that we'd be stopping actual criminal suspects. That's obviously not true with a carjacking.
* Being specific about the crimes we want to apply Flock to makes it easier for us to track (and, much more importantly, talk about) whether the cameras are successful. It's a real mixed bag right now!
Having said all that, the pro-camera contingent certainly does want Flock cameras used to catch package thieves and shoplifters. But they were up against anti-camera people who wanted no cameras at all. We took the opening and set our own terms.
Going after "easy" stuff like traffic and parking violations (neither of which can be enforced using Flock cameras here) is definitely not a problem we have. Our municipality is extraordinarily safe, but it's nestled into one of the less-safe areas in Chicagoland.
That isn't limited to SF either: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/06/1167980495/americas-roads-are...
SF is also planning to install dozens of speed enforcement cameras.
If we could roll out red light cameras villagewide, I'd sign on.
I dont know about that. My block in NYC in a school zone had a lot of people speeding along so the city installed a speed camera. It didn't seem to do much because people instantly learned it was there, slowed down, then gas it hard the next block. And that is the story with every speed camera: people learn where they are, do the brake pedal dance, then gas it.
I honestly believe they do close to nothing except make the contractors wealthy. As for the camera on my block: the city got smart and took it down less than two years after it went up. In its place they installed all-way stop signs on two consecutive corners. A low tech solution involving a few sheet metal signs bolted to a metal pole. They work better but there are still jackasses who gas it after the second sign. Jerks going to be jerks.
If I catch a burglar in my home I will certainly be violent to them, to pre-empt them from becoming a risk to me. I've been burgled several times and I've felt very violated.
Unfortunately here in Europe the courts don't really agree with that but that's a later matter. I think it's more 'fair game' in states like Texas. I keep a huge flashlight by my bed for that reason. It's not deadly but it will be enough to submit an intruder.
It could happen because I often don't bother to answer the door when I'm home and not expecting any parcels. Because most of the callers to my door are sales trash or scummy people trying to get into the communal stairwell.
But anyway my point is these things are not that black and white. It's more like a scale.