You've just described one of the primary reasons why Google labels their software Beta and Yahoo does not. Google does not want to have to support older versions of immature software - thus allowing them to innovate faster. And it seems to be working out pretty well for them.
How exactly did they prevent you from leaving? Even if they were dancing around in front of you blocking your escape I would think picking up your cell phone and starting to dial the police is the one method that always works (and is what the tech in this case should have done if he weren't such a crybaby).
How do they fix it if there is nothing wrong with it? That's beyond even the best customer service and that's the part we're missing - if it were actually just the connection it's understandable that she would be snippy with them, but it sounds like it was her computer and she's just a freak.
I'm truly sorry for what happened to you and while I hate to sound like a character from Brazil, these things happen.
However, I don't think these kinds of problems are new or even more severe as we add technology, we are simply becoming more aware of them. I don't have the data to back it up, but I certainly believe that there are fewer payroll errors and fewer false arrests than there were 50 or 100 years ago - and the problems today are much more easily corrected. Cases like yours are tragic, but not at all common (percentage-wise).
That's not to say that we can't do more to minimize the mistakes before they happen, offer compensation for those wronged, and hold those in error accountable. I think we've made progress in those areas, but we can and always will do more (although perhaps in fits and spurts).
I would argue that more technology, rather than less would help in these cases. It's already far easier to correct such mistakes using new technologies and ironically a national identity register might have made it easier to prove who you were.
As for "when in doubt, it's better to let a guilty man go free...", I think you'd be hard pressed to find any anglo-american who doesn't believe that, although we differ in the ratio (the error rate we'd tolerate). If you actually believe that we have to be 100% certain then I'd have to call you an anarchist goofball.
You blame the government, but they are just people. Individuals or businesses have proven themselves little better at guarding our privacy, so the solution isn't to shy away from it. Again, the solution is to hold them accountable - financially and criminally if necessary. I'm sure you agree, but we differ in the ordering. I'm willing to allow the technologies to develop while we're solving these problems and you're not willing to go any further until you're satisfied they can be trusted. I just don't think we'll ever get there without some of us going through some pain first and I'm willing to take that risk for the greater good.
But stating outright that CCTVs can't be a useful tool is just silly and ignorant, IMO
It probably would be, but if you look carefully, I don't think you'll find anywhere that I said that.
All I'm asking for is consistency and clarity. I've replied to several who have made that claim outright and they have declined to provide any evidence to support their claim (which, of course, would be impossible so I don't blame them for not trying).
You, however, didn't say so outright, but your statement that it's efficacy was unproven combined with your personal anecdotes and your privacy references enticed me to point out the other side of the argument out of fairness.
My essential claims are that: current CCTV and related technology is implemented too poorly to be of much use in fighting crime; current CCTV and related technology is not therefore a cost-effective use of taxpayers' money; and as the technology improves to become useful for these things, there is a danger that it will also become a central part of an overall government surveillance and monitoring system that collects and stores far more information about citizens than is appropriate in a free country, which will inevitably lead to bad things happening to innocent people because even if the technology dramatically improves, the people using it are still only human, and no measures of the kind we're discussing are ever likely to be 100% accurate.
I don't dispute any of what you've said here, but I do seem to have different opinions about what we do about it.
While many CCTV schemes may not have been cost effective and some deployments may have been premature we should not give up on this tool just yet (not for those reasons). A well managed police department could probably find a cost-effective way to use CCTVs now, but the potential is unlimited as technology improves and we get better (and less traditionally trained) police to work the system. Combine that with the new data and new models of sociology we get from all the trials (some of which will undoubtedly fail).
As for the danger, it certainly exists, but I am not as fearful of a tipping point as you seem to be. We will make mistakes, but we will learn from them, modify the procedures, and change the laws to minimize those mistakes. Just as we did for fingerprints, and as we are still doing for DNA.
100% accuracy is an unattainable dream and if that is the standard we might as well give up.
Sure it is, if you consider it in isolation. So is arresting violent people and putting them in jail before they hurt someone...
You are simply blaming the tool, rather than the current system (or more accurately your opinion on how it works and how it can be abused). CCTVs provide more data and it can be used or abused just as can fingerprints, DNA, witness testimony, or any other weapon in the crime fighting arsenal.
To make them useful, all that is required is to understand the proper error rate and apply it properly during the investigation and trial. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an "error rate of just 0.1%", but by any definition I can think of it would make the tool enormously valuable and far more reliable than current police methods.
I fail to see how you can blame the tube shooting on CCTVs. Yes, the incident would probably not have occurred without CCTVs, but CCTVs give the police more info to make proper decisions. Would you have fewer police on the streets, dim the lighting, and not distribute descriptions of possible suspects, just to prevent any accidental misidentifications?
That demonstrably isn't true [a camera combined with a speaker]. They've tried it.
Again, I think you are selectively looking at data and existing trials and making premature conclusions to support your position.
I couldn't find a reference, but I also recall some report on how such speakers in Britain were not as successful as hoped. But my recollection is that they were mostly for shouting at kids who were littering, drinking and carrying on too loudly, etc. While I would expect the speakers to work in some of those cases, it was obvious to me (before the results came in) that hooligans are not going to listen to speakers if there is actually no will on behalf of the police to come and arrest them (or track them down based on the footage).
But where there is a will (e.g. for more serious crimes or more serious police), the speakers will work, IMO. Partly to alert the criminal, but also to make other citizens aware. For me, it is somewhat analogous to car alarms - yes they are annoying and ignored most of the time, but in some cases and in some areas they are effective.
Creepy? Yes, when they're used solely to shout at a guy who dropped a cigarette butt. But not when the police are better trained and use it with more discretion.
A camera only acts as a deterrent within the area it can see...
It will act as a deterrent. I'm not saying a single camera will prevent all crime everywhere, but given the obvious constraints it will indeed act as a deterrent for some crimes in some places. Arguments against deploying CCTVs for this reason are about as absurd to me as saying that you shouldn't put more cops on the beat or add more and better streetlights if you can't get 100% coverage.
And while I'm sure there are many other individual cases that are similar, there is certainly far more anecdotal evidence of CCTVs working to identify and convict individual criminals.
So we're back to the hypocrisy of claiming that CCTV's don't (in fact can't) work, while denouncing them as a tool that is systematically undermining our privacy.
The rich control 99% of our wealth, yet they pay ONLY 80% of our taxes. Please account for this remaining 19%.
Your calculations, even if they are accurate, rely on the ridiculous assumption that taxes should be paid in exact proportion to wealth. What justification do you have for that?
Why not base taxes on the amount of resources consumed, or the influence the individual has on government policy, or on the benefits derived from those taxes?
Perhaps I've said something to offend you or you've misunderstood a previous comment I made somewhere, but in this case, I don't understand your objections here.
It doesn't offend me, but it just seems a waste of time. You keep diverting the discussion away from the simple contradiction I pointed out, rather than addressing it.
There is no paradox: it would, unfortunately, be realistic to operate an improved CCTV network in a way that supports state surveillance, yet which still isn't a cost-effective means of preventing crime.
It's possible, but is it reasonable to make that assumption? We've had many on here claim boldly "CCTVs don't work!" while providing either no evidence to support it, or scant evidence which shows that current (newly installed) CCTVs have inconclusive results (and in fact really indicate that CCTVs do work and have merely fallen short of expectations).
Then at the same time you have the privacy advocates like yourself who use a completely different standard, e.g. new technology, better police work, and legal, societal and procedural changes,... to denounce those same systems.
I just don't find it reasonable and I don't see how anyone with reasonable perspective can.
A CCTV camera can help to track someone, and perhaps with improved technology that would make it more useful for identifying who committed a crime after the fact, but it still can't jump down off a post and help if you're being mugged.
Respectfully, I think you have blinders on and are just looking for limitations to support your viewpoint on privacy. There are a couple of easy responses to your concerns:
1) tracking and identifying criminals is a great boon in solving crime and obtaining convictions - surely that is a good thing
2) a camera combined with a speaker certainly could be used to stop a crime in progress, without a single police officer getting off his ass
3) the camera can't jump down, but it will act as a deterrent and it will greatly extend the range of actual police officers
The question remains whether it is the most cost-effective way to reduce crime. But stating outright that CCTVs can't be a useful tool is just silly and ignorant, IMO.
This ties into what I wanted to say. The problem isn't so much the spying neighbors as the stupid laws they are trying to enforce. Make the laws rational and the problem goes away.
Your preaching on privacy is misplaced. Again, what it boils down to is that CCTVs may or may not be useful tools in fighting crime and they may or may not be used by a fascist police state. It seems disingenuous to argue that such a technology enforced police state is a likelihood while that same technology will never be advanced enough to combat crime.
It can certainly be overpriced for one person and well worth it for another. The question is how it can be both to the same person at the same time - it can't by any reasonable definition of "overpriced" that I'm aware of. Crack/Trekkie jokes aside, that is.
I don't know what the guy meant. I assume he meant "high priced" and just used the wrong term, thus unintentionally giving them a bad rap. Maybe you can interpret his contradictory statements with more certainty.
Again, why would you hate paying for something that was "well worth it?" Overpriced means that you are not getting value for your money, "well worth it" means the opposite. Perhaps you're thinking of "high priced."
You're making a case that it is possible for them to use CCTVs this way, not that there is any evidence that they are doing so. But here is the contradiction you seem to have missed - if they were so adept at using these cameras to invade our privacy then they should certainly be able to catch common criminals.
You just can't argue both sides - i.e. that authorities can't identify a mugger, but they know exactly who you are and can even tell which page of The Catcher in the Rye you're reading.
Seriously though, cameras don't fight crime. At best, they are used to convict the people who commit the crime.
But isn't convicting people a good deterrent?
At worst, they drive crime to other areas (and probably residential areas, since those are the people who have the least ability to lobby for similar "protection").
Then instead of CCTVs we should just leave a big pile of money out in the open with a sign "Do not touch." That should pretty much eliminate all other burglaries.
Making crime more difficult is kind of the point. Adding police or CCTVs (or bars or whatever) forces criminals to secondary targets. Isn't that a good thing or should we just set out that unguarded pile of cash for them?
But ultimately they fail because this is a technical solution to a social problem.
It's just a tool and it's only useful if you know how to use it. Should we also give up matching fingerprints or DNA testing?
I don't see the point of your comment. You could use it to argue against deploying more police officers on the streets (they can't be everywhere), or even against putting locks on doors.
For some current offenses (e.g. drugs and prostitution) there will always be a demand and cracking down in one area will have a negligible effect other than pushing it into the shadows. Address this problem by more sensible laws on "victimless" crimes.
But adding CCTVs or more police or better security systems will indeed force criminals to change their behavior, forcing them to take more precautions or by shifting to lower value targets. Thus making it less profitable (and attractive) to continue to commit such crime. Pushing those crimes into deeper and darker corners is exactly what you want.
Slashdot Mirror
You've just described one of the primary reasons why Google labels their software Beta and Yahoo does not. Google does not want to have to support older versions of immature software - thus allowing them to innovate faster. And it seems to be working out pretty well for them.
I can't imagine that ever being a serious problem.
How an online time warp blindsided United Airlines
Yeah, but you do need a working internet connection. Which she ain't got.
How exactly did they prevent you from leaving? Even if they were dancing around in front of you blocking your escape I would think picking up your cell phone and starting to dial the police is the one method that always works (and is what the tech in this case should have done if he weren't such a crybaby).
How do they fix it if there is nothing wrong with it? That's beyond even the best customer service and that's the part we're missing - if it were actually just the connection it's understandable that she would be snippy with them, but it sounds like it was her computer and she's just a freak.
I'm truly sorry for what happened to you and while I hate to sound like a character from Brazil, these things happen.
However, I don't think these kinds of problems are new or even more severe as we add technology, we are simply becoming more aware of them. I don't have the data to back it up, but I certainly believe that there are fewer payroll errors and fewer false arrests than there were 50 or 100 years ago - and the problems today are much more easily corrected. Cases like yours are tragic, but not at all common (percentage-wise).
That's not to say that we can't do more to minimize the mistakes before they happen, offer compensation for those wronged, and hold those in error accountable. I think we've made progress in those areas, but we can and always will do more (although perhaps in fits and spurts).
I would argue that more technology, rather than less would help in these cases. It's already far easier to correct such mistakes using new technologies and ironically a national identity register might have made it easier to prove who you were.
As for "when in doubt, it's better to let a guilty man go free ...", I think you'd be hard pressed to find any anglo-american who doesn't believe that, although we differ in the ratio (the error rate we'd tolerate). If you actually believe that we have to be 100% certain then I'd have to call you an anarchist goofball.
You blame the government, but they are just people. Individuals or businesses have proven themselves little better at guarding our privacy, so the solution isn't to shy away from it. Again, the solution is to hold them accountable - financially and criminally if necessary. I'm sure you agree, but we differ in the ordering. I'm willing to allow the technologies to develop while we're solving these problems and you're not willing to go any further until you're satisfied they can be trusted. I just don't think we'll ever get there without some of us going through some pain first and I'm willing to take that risk for the greater good.
But stating outright that CCTVs can't be a useful tool is just silly and ignorant, IMO
It probably would be, but if you look carefully, I don't think you'll find anywhere that I said that.
All I'm asking for is consistency and clarity. I've replied to several who have made that claim outright and they have declined to provide any evidence to support their claim (which, of course, would be impossible so I don't blame them for not trying).
You, however, didn't say so outright, but your statement that it's efficacy was unproven combined with your personal anecdotes and your privacy references enticed me to point out the other side of the argument out of fairness.
My essential claims are that: current CCTV and related technology is implemented too poorly to be of much use in fighting crime; current CCTV and related technology is not therefore a cost-effective use of taxpayers' money; and as the technology improves to become useful for these things, there is a danger that it will also become a central part of an overall government surveillance and monitoring system that collects and stores far more information about citizens than is appropriate in a free country, which will inevitably lead to bad things happening to innocent people because even if the technology dramatically improves, the people using it are still only human, and no measures of the kind we're discussing are ever likely to be 100% accurate.
I don't dispute any of what you've said here, but I do seem to have different opinions about what we do about it.
While many CCTV schemes may not have been cost effective and some deployments may have been premature we should not give up on this tool just yet (not for those reasons). A well managed police department could probably find a cost-effective way to use CCTVs now, but the potential is unlimited as technology improves and we get better (and less traditionally trained) police to work the system. Combine that with the new data and new models of sociology we get from all the trials (some of which will undoubtedly fail).
As for the danger, it certainly exists, but I am not as fearful of a tipping point as you seem to be. We will make mistakes, but we will learn from them, modify the procedures, and change the laws to minimize those mistakes. Just as we did for fingerprints, and as we are still doing for DNA.
100% accuracy is an unattainable dream and if that is the standard we might as well give up.
Sure it is, if you consider it in isolation. So is arresting violent people and putting them in jail before they hurt someone...
You are simply blaming the tool, rather than the current system (or more accurately your opinion on how it works and how it can be abused). CCTVs provide more data and it can be used or abused just as can fingerprints, DNA, witness testimony, or any other weapon in the crime fighting arsenal.
To make them useful, all that is required is to understand the proper error rate and apply it properly during the investigation and trial. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an "error rate of just 0.1%", but by any definition I can think of it would make the tool enormously valuable and far more reliable than current police methods.
I fail to see how you can blame the tube shooting on CCTVs. Yes, the incident would probably not have occurred without CCTVs, but CCTVs give the police more info to make proper decisions. Would you have fewer police on the streets, dim the lighting, and not distribute descriptions of possible suspects, just to prevent any accidental misidentifications?
That demonstrably isn't true [a camera combined with a speaker]. They've tried it.
Again, I think you are selectively looking at data and existing trials and making premature conclusions to support your position.
I couldn't find a reference, but I also recall some report on how such speakers in Britain were not as successful as hoped. But my recollection is that they were mostly for shouting at kids who were littering, drinking and carrying on too loudly, etc. While I would expect the speakers to work in some of those cases, it was obvious to me (before the results came in) that hooligans are not going to listen to speakers if there is actually no will on behalf of the police to come and arrest them (or track them down based on the footage).
But where there is a will (e.g. for more serious crimes or more serious police), the speakers will work, IMO. Partly to alert the criminal, but also to make other citizens aware. For me, it is somewhat analogous to car alarms - yes they are annoying and ignored most of the time, but in some cases and in some areas they are effective.
Creepy? Yes, when they're used solely to shout at a guy who dropped a cigarette butt. But not when the police are better trained and use it with more discretion.
A camera only acts as a deterrent within the area it can see...
It will act as a deterrent. I'm not saying a single camera will prevent all crime everywhere, but given the obvious constraints it will indeed act as a deterrent for some crimes in some places. Arguments against deploying CCTVs for this reason are about as absurd to me as saying that you shouldn't put more cops on the beat or add more and better streetlights if you can't get 100% coverage.
And while I'm sure there are many other individual cases that are similar, there is certainly far more anecdotal evidence of CCTVs working to identify and convict individual criminals.
So we're back to the hypocrisy of claiming that CCTV's don't (in fact can't) work, while denouncing them as a tool that is systematically undermining our privacy.
The rich control 99% of our wealth, yet they pay ONLY 80% of our taxes. Please account for this remaining 19%.
Your calculations, even if they are accurate, rely on the ridiculous assumption that taxes should be paid in exact proportion to wealth. What justification do you have for that?
Why not base taxes on the amount of resources consumed, or the influence the individual has on government policy, or on the benefits derived from those taxes?
Lopsided? Only in your imagination.
Perhaps I've said something to offend you or you've misunderstood a previous comment I made somewhere, but in this case, I don't understand your objections here.
It doesn't offend me, but it just seems a waste of time. You keep diverting the discussion away from the simple contradiction I pointed out, rather than addressing it.
There is no paradox: it would, unfortunately, be realistic to operate an improved CCTV network in a way that supports state surveillance, yet which still isn't a cost-effective means of preventing crime.
It's possible, but is it reasonable to make that assumption? We've had many on here claim boldly "CCTVs don't work!" while providing either no evidence to support it, or scant evidence which shows that current (newly installed) CCTVs have inconclusive results (and in fact really indicate that CCTVs do work and have merely fallen short of expectations).
... to denounce those same systems.
Then at the same time you have the privacy advocates like yourself who use a completely different standard, e.g. new technology, better police work, and legal, societal and procedural changes,
I just don't find it reasonable and I don't see how anyone with reasonable perspective can.
A CCTV camera can help to track someone, and perhaps with improved technology that would make it more useful for identifying who committed a crime after the fact, but it still can't jump down off a post and help if you're being mugged.
Respectfully, I think you have blinders on and are just looking for limitations to support your viewpoint on privacy. There are a couple of easy responses to your concerns:
1) tracking and identifying criminals is a great boon in solving crime and obtaining convictions - surely that is a good thing
2) a camera combined with a speaker certainly could be used to stop a crime in progress, without a single police officer getting off his ass
3) the camera can't jump down, but it will act as a deterrent and it will greatly extend the range of actual police officers
The question remains whether it is the most cost-effective way to reduce crime. But stating outright that CCTVs can't be a useful tool is just silly and ignorant, IMO.
On advice of counsel I'm declining to respond to this joke.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Only when it's actually funny.
This ties into what I wanted to say. The problem isn't so much the spying neighbors as the stupid laws they are trying to enforce. Make the laws rational and the problem goes away.
Your preaching on privacy is misplaced. Again, what it boils down to is that CCTVs may or may not be useful tools in fighting crime and they may or may not be used by a fascist police state. It seems disingenuous to argue that such a technology enforced police state is a likelihood while that same technology will never be advanced enough to combat crime.
It can certainly be overpriced for one person and well worth it for another. The question is how it can be both to the same person at the same time - it can't by any reasonable definition of "overpriced" that I'm aware of. Crack/Trekkie jokes aside, that is.
I don't know what the guy meant. I assume he meant "high priced" and just used the wrong term, thus unintentionally giving them a bad rap. Maybe you can interpret his contradictory statements with more certainty.
No, I'd say overpriced means you wish you could go multiple times but you can't force yourself to pay the money.
What you describe is "expensive" or "high priced."
It was worth every cent, it was just very expensive and I could not justify going.
Then you would say that it was a good value for the money, but just too expensive for your budget. High priced, not overpriced.
Again, why would you hate paying for something that was "well worth it?" Overpriced means that you are not getting value for your money, "well worth it" means the opposite. Perhaps you're thinking of "high priced."
You're making a case that it is possible for them to use CCTVs this way, not that there is any evidence that they are doing so. But here is the contradiction you seem to have missed - if they were so adept at using these cameras to invade our privacy then they should certainly be able to catch common criminals.
You just can't argue both sides - i.e. that authorities can't identify a mugger, but they know exactly who you are and can even tell which page of The Catcher in the Rye you're reading.
How can it be overpriced and "well worth it" at the same time?
Seriously though, cameras don't fight crime. At best, they are used to convict the people who commit the crime.
But isn't convicting people a good deterrent?
At worst, they drive crime to other areas (and probably residential areas, since those are the people who have the least ability to lobby for similar "protection").
Then instead of CCTVs we should just leave a big pile of money out in the open with a sign "Do not touch." That should pretty much eliminate all other burglaries.
Making crime more difficult is kind of the point. Adding police or CCTVs (or bars or whatever) forces criminals to secondary targets. Isn't that a good thing or should we just set out that unguarded pile of cash for them?
But ultimately they fail because this is a technical solution to a social problem.
It's just a tool and it's only useful if you know how to use it. Should we also give up matching fingerprints or DNA testing?
I don't see the point of your comment. You could use it to argue against deploying more police officers on the streets (they can't be everywhere), or even against putting locks on doors.
For some current offenses (e.g. drugs and prostitution) there will always be a demand and cracking down in one area will have a negligible effect other than pushing it into the shadows. Address this problem by more sensible laws on "victimless" crimes.
But adding CCTVs or more police or better security systems will indeed force criminals to change their behavior, forcing them to take more precautions or by shifting to lower value targets. Thus making it less profitable (and attractive) to continue to commit such crime. Pushing those crimes into deeper and darker corners is exactly what you want.
There is also precious little evidence that CCTV actually violates our privacy.