|
|
|
|
|
by basilgohar
36 days ago
|
|
Bringing up the highest-crime city as an example is using a well-known outlier tp prove a point. Is that valid in this context? I think Flock cameras are being used not just in high-crime areas, but in many places. One would have to determine that surveillance helped with crime in these areas to make that point valid. And more importantly, one has to ask, why it's NOT being used to deter more crime in high-crime areas, and being used in areas where there's no crime. The point is, where's the documented proof that they are helping. What we know is that people are still reporting crime in places where Flock cameras were present. Does that negate the effect? No, but it's just as valid as the point you brought. Which is to say, little to not all. |
|
By my parents house in Vallejo there is one of these cameras near a 7/11. They can finally walk there.