If CCTVs led to a perception of safety, New York/London/Chicago would rank highly as areas people feel safe walking around at night in. Or, similarly, it would suggest that people would not feel safe walking around in areas in Korea that do not have extensive CCTVs. The people of an area make it safe or not - not surveillance.
Mass surveillance does not provide much benefit but comes at extreme risk of abuse. Even without resorting to the typical examples, one needs only look to things like such as 'LOVEINT' [1]. The NSA were/(are?) spying on potential and present love interests so often that they created a tongue in cheek term for it. And obviously keep in mind that that the incidents where NSA agents were busted is likely but a fraction of all incidents.
But I do think one ought also consider the typical examples. In particular the Holocaust was carried out using nothing more than a census and some incredibly primitive computing technologies provided by IBM. What will happen the next time an awful person gains power, or are we supposed to hope this will simply never happen? We ought never support, implicitly or otherwise, domestic surveillance.
> New York/London/Chicago would rank highly as areas people feel safe walking around at night in.
I thought NY/Chicago doesn't have as much CCTVs in narrow streets as South Korea?
Was interested in this: NY(784km^2) has about 2000 cameras that NYPD deployed (~3 cameras/km^2). Seoul(605km^2) had about 48697 cameras that the metropolitan government has installed (~80 cameras/km^2).
> Or, similarly, it would suggest that people would not feel safe walking around in areas in Korea that do not have extensive CCTVs.
Basically, every street you can go to has CCTVs in Seoul. The portion of streets without CCTV installed is absurdly low.
> Mass surveillance does not provide much benefit but comes at extreme risk of abuse.
I agree that there is a big risk of abuse here; but I have to disagree with the point that CCTVs provide little benefit. CCTVs allow the arrest rates of 'the five violent crimes' (Murder, robbery, rape, theft, violence) go up from 79% in 2011 to 100% in 2016.
87% of all people agrees to install more CCTVs, 12% thinks that the current CCTV is appropriate; and only 1% thinks that there are too much CCTVs.
IMO, keeping an eye on the government whether they are using CCTVs inappropriately is a better choice than just insisting on not installing CCTVs.
>CCTVs allow the arrest rates of 'the five violent crimes' (Murder, robbery, rape, theft, violence) go up from 79% in 2011 to 100% in 2016.
I find this very suspicious. Do you have any statistics confirming it?
Also worth considering that in SK there are insanely high conviction rates, and probably for similar reason as in Japan (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20810572).
CCTVs are probably there to stop/decrease some kind of events. For example red light cams, speeding, not stopping at STOP signs, illegal parking, vandalism, etc.
Recently two guys were seen on a CCTV doing speed (amphetamine) in a car. So the police went after them, then later they have been charged.
So it "works", but of course two dudes duing a few stipes of speed is not exactly the crime of the century.
And ... on the other hand, as you point out, it's not the surveillance apparatus that matters, but the intent of the powers that be. IBM and censuses are still around, just as racism/xenophobia/lack-of-empathy. Census questions are a hot topic. Just as caging people that want a better future for themselves.
Therefore I think CCTVs and the debate around them - especially on HN - is just noise, because so far I haven't seen any proper data and study on them.
Mass surveillance does not provide much benefit but comes at extreme risk of abuse. Even without resorting to the typical examples, one needs only look to things like such as 'LOVEINT' [1]. The NSA were/(are?) spying on potential and present love interests so often that they created a tongue in cheek term for it. And obviously keep in mind that that the incidents where NSA agents were busted is likely but a fraction of all incidents.
But I do think one ought also consider the typical examples. In particular the Holocaust was carried out using nothing more than a census and some incredibly primitive computing technologies provided by IBM. What will happen the next time an awful person gains power, or are we supposed to hope this will simply never happen? We ought never support, implicitly or otherwise, domestic surveillance.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24...