[DoneWithAllThat]

The idea that surveillance undermines high trust societies seems insane to me. Widespread petty crime, lack of shared cultural norms and traditions, lacking of missing social reinforcement of expectations of a society - those are what prevent high trust societies from forming. I consider those things a much worse problem then Flock cameras.

[nemothekid]

>The idea that surveillance undermines high trust societies seems insane to me.

Only because, I'm betting, that you view street surveillance as something that binds others, but not yourself. I doubt you would make this argument for any other kind of surveillance.

If Microsoft were to record everything you did on your PC, would you consider Windows the "high trust" OS community vs Linux? Of if your employer began surveilling all your devices (including personal ones) to ensure you weren't stealing from the company, would you consider your company one of "high trust"?

I don't deny that surveillance can reduce crime, but the idea that surveillance undermines high trust societies is relatively straightforward

[mlrtime]

100% Agree. And I'll go further saying the highest trust societies I've lived in have been medium-size, rural/suburban. Everyone is in the social/economic class, similar traditions/backgrounds, similar church etc...

[raxxorraxor]

No, we had high trust societies before the shitty surveillance tech. There are quite a few effects that undermine it even and this tech is part of the reason why.

It is part of the problem, not part of a solution.

[LtWorf]

I don't think surveillance prevents crime. Not having so many poor people prevents crime.

Some people will always be antisocial due to tendencies and possibly mental illness, but having a society that is so rich and yet has so many poor people as the USA will of course create criminals. No amount of cameras will solve that.

[pclowes]

I would agree with that, but we probably have different definitions of poor. Destitute? Absolutely. I don’t think anybody is shocked that starving people commit crimes to not die.

However, I have been in plenty of low income high trust areas. In some ways, those were even more high trust.

Economics play a role, but there is a moral and cultural fabric that gets built through repeated interactions overtime. Unfortunately, that fabric is very susceptible to damage.

Eg: there are plenty of towns where you wouldn’t have to lock your car or even your bike, but it only takes a couple thefts for the entire culture to change…

[mlrtime]

There are plenty of poor immigrants who (shock) still come to the united states and do not commit crime.

Low income correlates, but not cause/effect. Giving cash to poor people in high crime areas doesn't solve crime rates.

[Steltek]

Not having so many rich people will go a lot farther in reducing crime, at this point.