Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

Eye in the sky reduces crime

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by l_boy, Jun 15, 2023.

  1. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    Eye in the sky: Did Baltimore’s aerial surveillance program go too far?

    So this technology was developed for Iraq fallujuh during Iraq war to help track IED bombers. Basically a plane or drone flies 15000 feet in the air and takes a picture every second. With that, once an event happens you can track backwards to see where the instigators originated.

    It was tried in Jaurez Mexico and during a demo helped identify and land an entire cartel based upon one cop murder.

    Was tried in a couple of US cities and they were able to solve crimes.

    In spite of that they didn’t move forward due to privacy concerns. This is frustrating in that you could literally save thousands of lives and millions of dollars due to crime, but people don’t like it because it seems icky.

    I heard about this on a radiolab podcast episode.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
  2. Trickster

    Trickster VIP Member

    10,111
    2,472
    3,233
    Sep 20, 2014
    Everything is subject to abuse, and there's always a weighing of interests. Whenever I'm in London, I'm struck by the proliferation of CCTV cameras. They are crucial to solving crime there, and my English friends are not in the least bothered by them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  3. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,250
    1,906
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    Do you like the idea of a surveillance society? I don't necessarily want to live in the panopticon, even if we are theoretically 'safer.'
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    I just don’t get hung up in most of these so called privacy issues. You can literally allow people to not have family members murdered, but people are scared their privacy will be violated. What privacy? There are lots of cameras, your phone and gps tracks everywhere you go, you have financial transactions everywhere, extensive web history.

    Listening to the podcast one young female talked about after 9/11 hearing fighter jets over NY made her sick to the stomach. To me it would have the exact opposite effect. I love seeing those things.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    I’d rather be surveilled than live in fear (in some places).

    Seems to me being willing to sacrifice thousands of lives so that you can feel “free” (when you are really already being survellied in other ways) is akin to saying getting vaxxed is a violation of your privacy even when it may save others. Strikes me as really selfish.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    14,520
    14,446
    3,363
    Jun 14, 2007
    Privacy?

    Im thinkn freedom.

    Id rather swim the seas and take my chances with sharks, than live safely in a flippn fish bowl. Or aquarium if you prefer.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  7. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,250
    1,906
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    I doubt you believe vaccination should be forced on anyone though, so to me it would seem the same as surveillance, which I have much less power to refuse as an individual.
     
  8. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    China does a nice job of surveilling its population. I'd rather live in Baltimore.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,250
    1,906
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    Yeah, and they arent even doing that out of some abstract fear of crime, but I suppose the instincts are the same, a drive toward maintaining order.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,250
    1,906
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    More grist for my theory that some people would rather create a massive police state than address the economic issues which create crime, all to just not pay slightly higher taxes
     
  11. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    Those are a couple of logical leaps of faith.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    All the while people walk around all day long with their phone gps on. It would be pretty easy to come up with pretty much everywhere you went in the last year.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. ATLGATORFAN

    ATLGATORFAN Premium Member

    3,748
    981
    2,153
    Aug 10, 2015
    It’s a slippery slope. There isn’t much crime in N Korea, maybe some petty but not much violent crime. There are certainly less intrusive methods to combat crime than literally filming every second of every day and hitting rewind
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. ATLGATORFAN

    ATLGATORFAN Premium Member

    3,748
    981
    2,153
    Aug 10, 2015
    yes that is the choice of the person holding the smart phone not a dictate from an overlord.

    It’s not new concept. There is no shortage of people throughout history willing to trade their liberty for security, real or perceived
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,250
    1,906
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    Ok, I think the main problem besides all the surveillance issues is that this technology doesnt prevent crime, it just makes some crimes easier to solve (and once people understand how it works it probably becomes less effective or spawns innovation among criminals). The things that actually prevent crime are going to be proactive, not reactive (the legal system is necessarily reactive). I suppose you can be 'proactive' by treating people like criminals before they commit crimes, but the best way to be proactive is to address things like poverty and inequality which create the incentives for crime in the first place. Unfortunately I think there are quite a few people who dont want to be proactive in that fashion, because the first way inconveniences them less.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    All the more reason we don't need an 'eye in the sky' watching us. We already have security cameras everywhere and cellphones and other devices that track us. It's harder to get away with crime than ever. You should be happy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  17. 96Gatorcise

    96Gatorcise Hurricane Hunter

    15,746
    26,029
    3,363
    Aug 6, 2008
    Tampa
    That is a choice. An eye in the sky I can't turn off isn't.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. antny1

    antny1 GC Hall of Fame

    5,451
    2,842
    2,698
    Dec 3, 2019
    Next step will be integrating them with 24/7 patrolling AI dog bots....:eek:
     
  19. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,021
    1,742
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    pretty much everybody who bitches about privacy walks around with their gps on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. ridgetop

    ridgetop GC Hall of Fame

    2,101
    734
    1,848
    Aug 4, 2020
    Top of the ridge
    If s always a sliding scale. If you live in a big city you are being watched. Security cameras, atms, traffic light cameras, etc…. Bell even in most neighborhoods you have ring doorbells every couple of doors/driveways. I question how much crime it prevents vs how much it helps in solving a crime. Does the eye in the sky’s top home invasions? Premeditated murder? Random mugging? Or just make it easier to close the case?
    I live off grid about half the year. I like being away from people. There is a danger in it… yes. We have had run ins with meth heads twice and a wayward hippie druggist looking to steal things once. But we don’t rely on the government to protect us out there so we don’t need any surveillance from the government.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1