Essentially, the DTMC [Detroit Threat Management Center] has done what libertarians like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman have long been saying could be done: They have turned the provision of public safety into a profitable business model, and they have done it in some of the worst neighborhoods in the country. The results have been incredible: According to Brown, crime has dropped dramatically in the areas where they work, and all without the loss of life to their staff or anyone else.
Funny how libertarianism results in ubiquitous surveillance. I’ll take violent cops over cameras everywhere.
Surveillance is what you’re going to get. Might as well accept it.
Quote from the story
Digital cameras and IT and the whole, once sci-fi, prospect of law enforcement being able to use a panopticon, databases and algorithms to always prevent evasion from detection and to guarantee eventual capture are too cheap now, and getting cheaper and more powerful all the time. Old style effective policing is now, well, illegal and unconstitutional. So tech is what’s left, and so tech’s what we’re going to get.
And surveillance works for good cops defending themselves against slander later (e.g. here’s Kasich being a prick in misrepresenting the actions of some respectful trooper) and against the violent cops too, which is why they all have cameras on their dashes are will be wearing cop-cams soon.
Wait, by LAW you have to pull a dangerous maneuver because they pull over too many cars which it is too dangerous, requiring even more pulls? To me this is an example of law enforcement creating barbarism. I think Kasich is only guilty of committing the fundamental attribution error by taking it out on the cop, and not realizing exaggeration may not work anymore.
Without the release of the video nobody even knows the identity of the cop and it is just a politician exaggerating a story. It is a political attack more than protecting a cop from slander. To me this corroborates concerns over surveillance. They collect everything and then release only damaging evidence, on a presidential candidate no less!
Would be nice to have some data to back this up, especially if this was just a matter of the crime going a few blocks away.
Steve
This is why I have exposed dummy cameras as well as hidden real cameras.
First, deter them from what is really important, second provide posutive externality by catching them.
Cops still may not do anything for you even with video evidence (not speculative) and definitely won’t without (again, not speculative). Your first responsibility is to yourselves. But it still increases the cost to the criminal even if they just go next door.
“Funny how libertarianism results in ubiquitous surveillance. I’ll take violent cops over cameras everywhere.”
I doubt anyone really would make this trade if they were the barbarians getting shot in the back for bad brake lights and child support. It’s an easy trade while having the luxury of thinking we are the civilized and THEY are the barbarous with only the cops in between. From where I stand, I believe I’m one cross word from some cop’s bad day and on the other end am also constantly being picked clean from criminals that cops refuse to pursue.
There is also a difference between private surveillance and state surveillance. This is complicated by the fact that private surveillance can be used for state purposes and vice versa. I’m still kind of shocked that we get vindicating video evidence from cop cameras at all. Maybe it is too hard to manipulate it, or maybe they just haven’t figured out how to yet. Maybe public criticism of policing hasn’t yet warranted a blanket cover-up effort. I’m also amazed that some cops still do what they do when they know they are on camera. So, they obviously haven’t acclimated to it yet.
Half the comments made by Andrew’. Never a good sign.