
A World of Surveillance Doesn’t Always Help to Catch a Thief - JumpCrisscross
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/technology/a-world-of-surveillance-doesnt-always-help-to-catch-a-thief.html
======
confounded
Growing up in the UK and living in the US has given me the odd distinction of
being strongly against online surveillance of private space, and strongly in
favor of regulated visual surveillance of public space.

CCTV surveillance can protect the people I care about (especially women at
night) from horrible violent crimes I'm actually scared of. It's surveillance
of public space, so the privacy compromise seems kind of moot (though uses of
the footage should be strongly regulated). It makes policing violent and petty
crime extremely cheap and effective (ask anyone who's ever won or lost a fight
outside a pub). CCTV makes me feel safe. It has utility.

On the Internet by contrast, the privacy trade-off (my thoughts, political
opinions, contacts, location, in real-time) is extremely large, and the
benefits largely hypothetical, and at least some part smoke and mirrors.

~~~
dumb-saint
I find it extremely creepy to visit the UK because of all the cameras,
sometimes actively pointed at me. It is one thing to not expect privacy in the
public space, in the sense that others can see you. It is another to be
actively targeted by a gigantic network of cameras connected to who knows what
-- in an age where automatic face recognition is becoming trivial.

I would like to ask people who make the "you have no expectation of privacy in
the public space" claim if they wouldn't mind if I hired a guy to follow them
everywhere they go and then report to me.

In the end, I am aware that this is a losing battle, and that people who feel
as strongly as me about not being constantly under surveillance will have to
move out of big cities. Big cities are becoming highly controlled environment,
where one doesn't feel like a sovereign human being anymore. In a sense they
are an externalisation of corporate culture.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Regarding automatic face recognition: I believe most US/European citizens, at
least those who travel on airplanes, are in the facial recognition corpus of
the intelligence services by now. What they do (I'm guessing) is use the
cameras at passport checkpoints in airports. There they get many thousands of
frames of your face from various angles, and due to the strict ordering in the
queue they can match all those to your ID when your passport is
scanned/entered into the computer.

~~~
dumb-saint
Yes, I think modern airports are a good prototype for the sort of dystopian
environments we can expect in the future. It will only get worse until the
entire thing collapses, as it always does -- Stasi, McCarthyism, Gestapo, you
name it. This time it's more scary because the technology is sci-fi compared
to the previous iterations.

I am more and more convinced that the cyberpunk guys got it right in terms of
predicting future trends :(

~~~
pdimitar
[ _Apologies for off-topic_ ]

As a relatively new cyberpunk fan, let me give you a few points:

(1) Cyberpunk is very much about being realistic about human nature. Some of
us (like me) assume malice by default. You might not believe me but I get
saddened _every time_ I am proven right. This is coming from a 36-year old
programmer supporting his mother and girlfriend.

(2) We don't assume altruism by default because (2.1) history is [mostly] not
on the side of this sentiment and (2.2) we are touched by ambition and greed
ourselves and we realize that we could become just as bad (if not worse) given
the same power as the current spy agencies / corporate hires / whatever else.

(3) We understand that "pure capitalism" and "corporatism" leads to the 0.5%
having 95% of the capital, assets and anything else valuable. So when you see
a dark art piece on DeviantArt showing people miserable on the streets while a
high-tech shiny vehicle surrounded by police-men passes by, and a few huge
adverts are glowing in the background, don't be quick to say "2edgy4me". ;)

(4) We also know technology is seen as a way of gaining an unfair advantage
over everybody else -- and most of the time technology is not used to the
majority's advantage. If somebody invents AI by themselves, do you think
they'll just share it with the world? LOL no. The "Transcedence" movie script
is the most likely scenario -- the AI becomes sentient, escapes to the
internet to evade attackers, and then talks to you through a smartphone or a
tablet.

=== The general cyberpunk audience is wide and interesting but it mostly boils
down to two types:

(1) Rebelious teenagers who would give everything just to prove the bad adults
that if their thoughts and feelings are ignored, the world is gonna go to shit
(and to be fair, they might have a point). Some of them are toxic, some are
not -- but they're mostly an okay bunch. Still, I give them kudos for going
outside the typical teenager boxes. Getting engaged in cyberpunk fandom
consciously implies some level of critical thinking, IMO.

(2) A group of rather dark-souled adults who stopped believing in the "bright
future" a long time ago. Again, we're touched by greed and ambition ourselves,
we're very conscious about the balance of power around the world and we don't
kid ourselves.

I hope this helps you understand the cyberpunk bunch a bit.

 _EDIT_ :

As mentioned by @Fnoord a few comments below, "Ghost in the Shell" is your
absolute Bible of a starting place in the cyberpunk genre. The anime movies
and the series touch on a plethora of problems that don't even exist yet but
are extremely likely to exist pretty soon. And they are a masterpiece in
exposing the corruption which all of us would be vulnerable to.

Order of watching:

[http://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/2922/in-what-
order-...](http://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/2922/in-what-order-should-
i-watch-the-ghost-in-the-shell-series)

~~~
techer
Thanks for that. Can you suggest some additional reading?

~~~
Fnoord
Not sure if manga qualifies as reading but for manga/anime cyberpunk I can
recommend Ghost In The Shell. It deeply touches these subjects, from multiple
angles.

Then, since you specifically said read, there's Philip K. Dick, who wrote
loads of books on this genre. When people think of Blade Runner they don't
even know its based on a novel by him [1]

If you're referring to a book which _studies_ cyberpunk as a genre from a
documentary PoV then I wouldn't know.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F)

~~~
pdimitar
+1000 for "Ghost in the Shell", I am ashamed to have forgotten to mention this
absolute masterpiece which remains unbeaten in this genre to this day.

------
white-flame
This is selective enforcement, not equality under the law.

I understand the load police tend to be under, but I really wish they would
have some lottery enforcement style that grabbed one random instance of
"common" crime like this at a time, and went whole-hog with it. They do it for
speeding, so they can make a bit of money with fines, and have the hope of
finding connected crimes; what's different about theft like this that they
can't do the same?

But back to the all-seeing eyes, I'd far, FAR rather have surveillance footage
in the hands of individually distributed private entities, than centralized
and auto-analyzing anybody for behavioral pre-crime indicators. If your local
McDonald's truly is just its own independent operator storing the footage,
then IMO it can still be generally considered "lost in the crowd".

It's only when automatically aggregated and its contents cataloged that stuff
like this truly becomes dangerous.

~~~
bcook
Would you consider the idea that if someone has murdered, they are more likely
to murder again (compared to those who never have) an example of "pre-crime"?

~~~
imagist
You're getting a rare down vote from me because this is such an obvious straw
man. At least pretend to try to understand his point.

~~~
bcook
Can you explain? I agree with the parent poster. I was curious what he
considered pre-crime.

My original question was an honest one (as is this one). Yeah, maybe the
question was ignorant or stupid... my bad, I suppose. I don't understand why
I'd need to pretend to understand anything... that seems dishonest.

I do not understand why an honest question deserves your downvote.

~~~
Jtsummers
I didn't down vote you, but I did ignore your original comment because it was
hyperbolic (bringing up murder and pre-crime). It didn't have any direct
bearing (or seem to) to its parent post or the article. If you (and you seem
to be) are just genuinely curious about their opinion on pre-crime that's
fair, but it didn't seem related, it really did feel like a hyperbolic non-
sequitur.

------
bediger4000
I'm led to believe that all that surveillance isn't for thief-catching.
Surveillance is valuable, otherwise so many cameras wouldn't watch streets all
over. I counted 15 cameras between my bus stop and my office 3 blocks away
last winter.

So what's the surveillance for? Probably preventing property damage, maybe
keep hobos from whizzing in doorways and such. But please, let's stop
pretending that the surveillance is for the benefit of those surveilled. It
leads to pitiful narratives like this article.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _So what 's the surveillance for?_

To prove to insurance you had something stolen as well as to give you "warm
and fuzzies". (On surveillance being there to protect property, note the
comment in this thread about a surveilled garage being burgled [1].)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13217539](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13217539)

~~~
joosters
I've not heard of insurance policies that require video evidence of theft
before they pay out. Have you any evidence of this claim?

------
lisper
The difficulty of enforcing the law is actually a useful part of our overall
system because it provides a check-and-balance against the overeager
enforcement of bad laws. Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras
sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically
reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. Yes, it becomes annoying
when criminals get away with things they really should not be able to get away
with (like the theft in this article) but even in situations like that there
are grey areas, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family (not the
case here, but it does happen). That the law does not get enforced with 100%
efficiency can be a feature as long as you don't go _too_ far towards the
other extreme.

~~~
nkurz
_Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every
time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you
exceeded the speed limit._

I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally
enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective
enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are
negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed.

Should jaywalking itself always be illegal? No, it should depend on whether
there is an actual danger and the degree to which it impedes traffic. A more
sane law would differentiate between calmly crossing at midnight on an empty
street and causing an accident by darting into busy traffic.

Should it be illegal to exceed the posted speed limit? I think so, otherwise
why not just have "advisory speeds"? Rather than making it illegal to exceed a
speed that drivers are expected to exceed and then enforcing selectively, a
firmly enforced limit seems much saner. If the goal is fuel efficiency, then
legislate that directly. If the goal is safety, then "reasonable and prudent"
seems sufficient.

 _like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family_

I think this is better dealt with at the penalty phase than by selective
prosecution. I feel the owner of the lost loaf of bread should have the right
to prosecute or not prosecute entirely at their discretion, but once the
police are involved I think they should be required enforce the law and leave
the discretion to the judge. It it would seem terribly unfair to the property
owner for the police on the scene to summarily decide that the theft was
justified and the shop owner must absorb the loss.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
You're extremely naive.

The US and its individual states have a litany of laws on the books. There are
so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday, gay
people in particular. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed.

~~~
nkurz
_You 're extremely naive._

Likely, although my belief is only that selective enforcement of a "litany of
laws" is worse than universal enforcement of that same overreach, and I don't
disagree that it's practically impossible to live life or run a business 100%
legally. I'm not questioning that there is ridiculous overreach, only
suggesting that universal enforcement might be a solution.

 _There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law
everyday_

My usual example when the topic comes up is asking people whether they have
been properly self-reporting and paying in-state sales tax on their out-of-
state purchases as required by law in most states. I was impressed by one
friend (a law professor) who was surprised to learn this, and now strives to
be legally compliant.

 _It 's sad but most laws do not get repealed._

Yes, but I think this is because we are relying so heavily on selective
enforcement. It's certainly true that universal enforcement would be very
difficult, and may have significant downsides, but I'd bet that if our
legislators start losing their driving licenses for speeding offenses (or as
you point out, if they, their gay friends, or family members were jailed for
sodomy), the congressional gridlock would be broken and a lot of laws would
swiftly be changed or repealed.

------
JumpCrisscross
An Uber driver told me about the time he picked up a credit-card thief. The
guy just asked to be driven around (in his SUV) from one side of New York to
the other. As the fare ended, he'd hail the driver with a new credit card and
start a new one. At one point, he stopped at a house and walked out with a new
stack of cards.

The driver [EDIT: said he] was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger
out mid-trip. Right afterwards, he went to the police station and tried to
report the crime. He was told he was free to report it, but it was a low-
priority crime that was unlikely to get investigated.

~~~
GavinMcG
> The driver was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip

That would really surprise me. And he certainly could have declined the
subsequent hailings.

~~~
Jtsummers
Indeed, that doesn't make sense. You're witnessing probable criminal activity,
and aiding it by providing the ride which could make you an accomplice once
you were aware of the activity.

What law could possibly prohibit you from reporting this or leaving the
passenger behind?

EDIT: Looking it up I'm not finding anything except stories of Uber drivers
kicking people out mid-ride. Perhaps a particular municipality has a more
specific regulation? There are lots of reasons to kick passengers out, and
criminal activity is #1 (perhaps tied with "they're about to puke/piss in my
car because they're so wasted").

~~~
crispyambulance
Because by the time "law" enters into the picture, the driver will have been
booted by Uber, the thief will have been released from jail and already
started on his next stack of credit cards and being driven by another Uber
driver.

~~~
Jtsummers
There is still no law that mandates you must be an accomplice to a criminal or
that you cannot boot passengers out. Reading Uber driver stories, it seems
kicking out passengers isn't too uncommon. Yeah, it's a hit, but most of them
said you need to contact Uber immediately to explain the situation (with mixed
results). Personally, I'd rather do that than drive a criminal around to
commit crimes (including defrauding my employer).

~~~
crispyambulance
An accomplice is somebody who participates knowingly in a criminal activity.
Minding one's business and not making baseless assumptions about whether an
uncanny stack of credit cards implies a crook doesn't rise anywhere near being
"an accomplice".

------
iamleppert
I had over $5,000 worth of stuff stolen from my garage (also in SF) a few
weeks ago. The police were not concerned in the least. I had cameras,
documenting the entire thing with clear faces; it doesn't matter.

Unless you're caught red handed or something, you can basically steal whatever
you want in SF. It almost makes me want to turn into a thief myself (if I know
I can get away with it), except there's that little thing that my parents
saddled me with called morality.

I'd feel too bad afterwards, although sometimes I wish I wouldn't. There's
something to be said about just taking whatever the hell you want in this
life.

~~~
nradov
It really depends on where you are. In some smaller cities near SF such as
Campbell or Los Gatos the police absolutely take residential burglaries
seriously. They have closed a number of cases recently based partially on
surveillance camera footage.

I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why
don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government?
Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.

~~~
aminok
>I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why
don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government?
Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.

It's politically fashionable to coddle those who commit property crime. It's a
form of virtue signalling, since it suggests altruism for the lower class. You
see the same thing in Vancouver. There's very little political will to stop
the rampant property crime that occurs here.

------
mirimir
> After two visits and three calls to the Mission district station, and three
> calls and two emails with San Francisco Police Department public affairs (a
> route not open to most civilians), the police assigned someone to my case.
> That was well over a month after the theft. Walgreens gave them some video,
> which has been circulated, but Target had already junked its footage.

OK, it sounds like someone did some substantial work. They got video from one
source, and queried another, and then did something with the video.

> Uber, which over its four rides obtained route information and the person’s
> address, was not contacted.

And yet, the investigator didn't request data from Uber, which apparently
learned the suspect's address. I wonder what's up with that? Do they consider
it too unreliable? Something akin to hearsay? Or maybe they don't want to
violate the suspect's privacy? Very strange.

~~~
kapitza
Perhaps you've seen _The Big Lebowski_. "Leads? _Leads?_ "

The odds of the SFPD "investigating" a mere wallet theft are even lower than
the Malibu PD trying to figure out who stole Jeff Bridges' car.

For one thing, after Prop 47, stealing anything under $950 is a misdemeanor. A
misdemeanor is basically a traffic ticket for anyone already involved with the
criminal justice system. Misdemeanors basically do not result in any kind of
custodial sentence in CA today.

Only a reporter could get them to care at all. ("Journalist privilege" is
real.) Even then, they can only care so much.

~~~
mirimir
What you say is true.

And yet, while "journalist privilege" got them to do something, it was a
_harder_ thing, and would have taken _tons_ of work to yield anything. But not
the easy thing, contacting Uber. It's odd. Maybe they were just messing with
him.

------
eeZah7Ux
Dragnet mass surveillance is not about protecting citizens from theft, is
about protecting the government from citizens.

------
byuu
I once had a bank card fall out of my pocket at a movie theater. My mistake,
should've put it in the wallet but was in a hurrry.

Most likely someone on the cleaning crew stole it. Same pattern, tiny fast
food purchases followed by lots of several hundred dollar purchases. My bank
(Huntington), did not catch it at all. They drained the entire checking
account.

They mostly went to Meijer, three times spending over $300 each time, all on
the same night. And every time, they paid with credit and no cashier there
asked for ID. (Yeah, I didn't have a lot of money back then, this was around
2008? or so, I believe.)

Filed a police report, went to the bank. Took about two weeks to get the money
back, barely made rent that month as a result. A detective called me one time,
asked me to call him back. I called him back probably five times leaving
messages for him, he was never there, and he never called me again. I never
heard anything more on it.

They can easily catch these guys if they want to, they just apparently don't
give a shit, as there's nothing really in it for them. Better to go after
revenue-generating pursuits like civil forfeiture, I guess. Maybe they just
have too many cases, but by not resolving them, all that does is embolden
thieves to keep doing this shit because they know they'll get away with it.

Moral of the story: keep separate checking and savings accounts, don't ever
carry around cards that can ring up more than you're comfortable losing.
Nowadays I keep less than $1,000 in my checking account (which isn't as much
for me anymore), the rest in savings. If I want to make a big purchase, I'll
bring my credit card along with me that one time only. I wanted to do a debit-
only card to require a PIN#, but those are far too restrictive. Way too many
places are credit only (fast food, restaurants, parking lot ticket machines,
etc.)

Also, wallet chains. They look tacky as hell, but they've saved me more than
once. If you wear khakis, they're essential.

------
SeanDav
We are not many years away from facial recognition cameras tracking everyone
in public spaces in real time with updates to a centralized database system.

Anyone hiding their face, or not being recognized by the system would be
flagged for investigation by on-the-ground units.

At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the
culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.

~~~
quanticle
>At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the
culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.

As others have stated, it depends entirely on how seriously the police takes
these crimes. If the police actually get the footage and investigate, sure,
crime can be stopped. But, at this point, the limiting factor isn't collecting
the footage. It's getting police resources to find the crime, and publicize
the various film and video footage.

------
chillingeffect
Most cameras are there so insurance can tell it wasn't the business owner
ripping them off. /thread

------
kutkloon7
This seems to be more about the unwillingness of the police to help, than
about a failure of the technology to help.

