Fighting Pre-crime

[pendell]

So the police in New Jersey have a new idea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebHqLvYjM8&feature=player_embedded). Seems that many surveillance cameras have a red light attached. If a person fits the profile of criminal activity, the big red light is shone on them, presumably to let them know they are under observation.

What do you guys think? I have two initial thoughts:

1) Why NO, this isn't creepy at all in any way.
2) Thanks for identifying the surveillance camera's location for me.

IIRC, convenience stores all have surveillance cameras and they still get robbed with grim regularity. Or so the plethora of youtube videos showing how horribly said robberies can be botched leads me to believe.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[noparlpf]

I dunno, I feel like if they have the time to remotely activate a light, they ought to be spending that time calling the patrolling cops in the area to go arrest the criminal.

[Reluctance]

It takes longer for an officer to get there than it does for a light to be remotely turned on.

Still, this runs into the problem most surveillance-based systems can. The more cameras you have, the more people you need to watch them to make them a workable preemptive defense. This means you'll either be pulling off people who could be on the beat, or spreading watchers so thin as to be completely ineffective. The ideal of "hire both" won't work in this economy.

And that's ignoring human foibles. If something is a reasonable predictor of a crime, some equivalent of clearing one's throat might be handy. (Retail staff are often instructed to approach customers who seem too fidgety for precisely this reason.) While overworked officers are unlikely to do much more than creep out "the wrong sort of person" with this, it's still a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[Riverdance]

I'm torn between being creeped out and impressed by their system. It sounds like a neat idea for the example they gave but I wonder what problems might arise.

Imagine if a practical joker got their hands on the controls to the lights. It could be very funny in the hands of someone creative.

[Jack Squat]

If criminals are being "spotted" by profiling, criminal types will just make an effort to look "normal" to avoid being detected. Add on that surveillance systems Are generally ineffective at preventing crime (http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html), and I don't think this will do anything long term to prevent crime.

[Raddish]

I dunno, I feel like if they have the time to remotely activate a light, they ought to be spending that time calling the patrolling cops in the area to go arrest the criminal.

Except they aren't ccriminals yet, they are shining light on peopel they think are about to commit a crime.

I don't know why, it doesn't feel like it could do anything to disuade someone from a crime, it just shows them a camera to avoid when they are doing it.


It's not creepy at all to me though, I know there are loads of cameras there watching me as I go about my day, pointing out specifically where they are wouldn't creep me out. Might be annoying to have a light on me though when it means they think I am about to do something criminal, I guess it depends on how effective the operators of such a system would be.

[THAC0]

Big Brother = bad.

[BladeofObliviom]

Nah, to stop crime before it happens, what you need are three Psychics to keep underwater, an automatic engraver, and a large supply of Brown and Red wooden spheres. :smalltongue:

(Reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_%28film%29))

[Fiery Diamond]

Big Brother = bad.

That was my thought. All this "criminal profiling" business is starting to get me ... let's say "not happy" with the government.

[DeadManSleeping]

So much fun could be had with this, I kind of want to encourage it.

The board's emoticons do not do an adequate job of portraying the mischievous thoughts I am having.

[Togath]

Big Brother = bad.

Cameras don't actually work very well for preventing robberies anyway, their best use is afterward to get images of the criminals should something occur, a much better way to prevent robbery is simply to have a sturdy vault that stores the store's money, and only have on hand the minimum needed(after all a criminal would have to be pretty dang stupid to try to rob something that isn't there, and even if he did try to rob the store, you would only have minimal damages), in addition, having a large number of large windows helps in case of a robbery, as it makes it easier for people to see that the shopkeeper is in trouble.
In addition, the lights could be easily abused if the control system for them got hacked.

[Reluctance]

If someone is pulling a ski mask on right before they enter a store, a light reminding them that they're being watched could very well dissuade them.

The bigger issue is the sheer number of cameras that would need retrofitting, and the number of officers that would be needed to watch them. Big Brother works alright in an infinite resources scenario. (Never mind the whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" angle.) In our world of limited resources, the net will be full of holes, and there are a bajillion more effective ways that money could be spent.

[thubby]

Cameras don't actually work very well for preventing robberies anyway, their best use is afterward to get images of the criminals should something occur

this is untrue. clearly visible cameras are proven deterrents.

[Togath]

I meant more that in comparison cameras work worse than simply having most of your money in a vault, as pretty much every store has clearly visible cameras and stores still get robbed often, though cameras do help, and having both a vault and clearly visible cameras is even better(then again, I'm only guessing that the vaults help, a robber would have to be an idiot to try to steal something weighing 50-100lb that’s bolted to the ground and is nearly impossible to break into)

[Coidzor]

Too cheap to make the entire city smell like citrus and thus cut down on crime that way, eh?

[thubby]

Too cheap to make the entire city smell like citrus and thus cut down on crime that way, eh?

um... what?

[Coidzor]

um... what?

Sorry, forgot to get dressed first.

Citrus smells have been shown to not only reduce crime but also to make people happier and behave more morally.

[thubby]

Sorry, forgot to get dressed first.

Citrus smells have been shown to not only reduce crime but also to make people happier and behave more morally.

i question the causative link there, but that's still pretty funny

[Aedilred]

Similar experiments have been undertaken with playing classical music on the London Underground and I think those were moderately successful.

It's certainly preferable to one crime deterrent method I've seen used here, which is a high-pitched siren positioned outside shops to stop "youths" loitering there. It doesn't bother adults - in theory - because their hearing has deteriorated to the point that they can't hear it. I've experienced this once, when a local shop installed one. I was about 22, so long past the age where you expect youths to be loitering and causing trouble, and was using the laundrette next door. The siren - just on the edge of my hearing - drove me crazy. In fact it made me angrier and more likely to commit violent crime against the shopkeeper for having installed the thing, even though I was present for an entirely legitimate purpose. I dread to think what it'd be like for families with babies or young children, for whom it would sound much more clearly and to whom it would actually be quite distressing. I don't really understand how it's legal. Perhaps the siren is only designed to be turned on when loitering gangs are present, but this guy - and, I suspect, many like him - just left it on all the time.

[Raddish]

Cameras do help prevent crime and they certainly help capture criminals after an act when they are all there is to identify them by. I also don't know why there is such a hate of them, with all the people who go through them daily they don't really care about individuals who are not doing anything wrong.

[Jack Squat]

Cameras do help prevent crime and they certainly help capture criminals after an act when they are all there is to identify them by. I also don't know why there is such a hate of them, with all the people who go through them daily they don't really care about individuals who are not doing anything wrong.

It's because they actually don't help, not enough to justify the spending anyways.

Here's a few links on the subject, and there's also the one that I posted earlier in the thread.

Huge investment in closed-circuit TV technology has failed to cut UK crime, a senior police officer has warned.
Det Ch Insp Mick Neville said the system was an "utter fiasco" - with only 3% of London's street robberies being solved using security cameras.

BBC - CCTV boom 'failing to cut crime' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7384843.stm)


Overall, most studies indicate that CCTVs are not an effective means for reducing crime. CCTVs are effective at reducing incidents of burglary and property crime, but they are not effective against personal crime, violent crime or public disorder. A report released by NARCO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) states that CCTVs result in a 5% reduction in crime whereas better street lighting results in a 20% reduction in crime. These figures are fairly consistent throughout most CCTV studies.

Literature Review on Issues of Privacy and Surveillance Affecting Social Behaviour (http://www.oipc.ab.ca/ims/client/upload/LitReview.pdf)



Baltimore’s camera system, developed by NICE Systems, is watched continuously.15 The city claims that the cameras decrease crime, but one of the monitors said that the types of crimes he has witnessed are: “Mostly people drinking beer in public, or popping pills.”

EPIC Spotlight on Surveillance (http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/1205/default.html)

[Coidzor]

And really, good street lighting should just be a matter of civic pride, without being more effective than cameras to push it. :smallsigh:

But no, no one cares about good street lighting... or apparently good street light design. What with the street lights which commonly turn off completely when an individual comes near them or when people congregate in an area around them. :/

[Gnoman]

It's because they actually don't help, not enough to justify the spending anyways.


The disconnect here is that between "overwatch" systems and targeted ones.

Targeted ones like those at a casino, bank, or convienince store have proved quite successful for the cost both as a deterrent and as a way of solving crimes that show up. This is becuase they focus on a very narrow pattern of behavior or are chiefly used to identify someone after the fact rather than to identify people who might be planning to do something; combined with the fact that there is a fairly favorable ratio (for the continually monitored variety) of watchers to watched. This success makes it an effective deterrent, because so many people in the potential pool either know someone who was busted by a surveillance video or have seen such enough times on the news that they know it to be effective.

The only large-scale camera deployment that's shown any measurable success is automated red-light or speed enforcement units. YOu're looking at too broad an area with too diverse a mandate with too few people.

[Greenish]

Cameras do help prevent crime and they certainly help capture criminals after an act when they are all there is to identify them by. I also don't know why there is such a hate of them, with all the people who go through them daily they don't really care about individuals who are not doing anything wrong.I'll quote Butterflies and Wheels:
This is a version of the very popular “The innocent have nothing to fear” argument, which is wheeled out whenever authorities wish to bring in new measures which increase surveillance or limit freedoms in the name of increasing security. For example, someone demands to search your luggage. You object to this intrusion on your privacy, but you are told that if you are innocent, you have no reason to object. After all, what are you trying to hide?

The argument is a particular species of false dichotomy. You are presented with a simple either/or choice. Either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice.

In the case of “The innocent have nothing to fear” argument, the key point is usually that our objections have nothing to do with our guilt or innocence, but with our right to privacy. We don’t want to be scrutinised at every turn because constant scrutiny is an intrusion into our privacy. Consider, for example, that what we get up to in our bedrooms may be nothing to be ashamed of, but most of us still wouldn’t want others to stand around and watch. Potential voyeurs would not have a very strong case if they simply said, “Why not let us look? Doing something you shouldn’t be?” “The innocent have nothing to fear” is therefore usually an example of a red herring: the fact that we are not doing anything wrong is beside the point.

[Asta Kask]

Big Brother = bad.

Yeah, something like that.

[stainboy]

Really?

http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/bioshock/medical1/29.jpg

Seriously though, here's the problem: if someone suddenly shines a red spotlight on me in the middle of the street, I'm going to get out of it as quickly as possible whether I'm committing a crime or not.

So if you're an East Orange police officer and you need an excuse to search or arrest someone, it's way too damn easy. Park around the corner, hit them with the red spotlight, then when they do the natural thing that humans do in that situation you drive around and pick them up.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Sorry, but this seems to be wandering too close to the, "Politics," line.