2019 had 99 murders. This has absolutely nothing to do with Flock, and the notion is perverse nonsense.
Cameras do not prevent crime. This has been eminently shown endlessly. Now ideally they help then find the culprits, but in practice this just isn't happening.
What is this based on? They do seem to prevent crime [1][2][3]. To my naive perspective, this seems ludicrously obvious, since there are just countless examples of thieves looking around for cameras, and then noping out once one is seen, that can be found on YouTube. As a youth, who enjoyed urban exploration with my friends (aka trespassing) it definitely deterred our group from entering a properties. It doesn't prevent certain crimes, but to say it doesn't prevent any is a perspective that I, and the insurance agencies that give discounts, just can't comprehend.
A camera does not prevent crime. It never has, anywhere on the planet. Monitoring does prevent crime, and people who look out for cameras aren't worried about the camera, they're worried about active monitoring. They're worried that the police will be there moments later. When you planned on breaking into a dozen cars to rummage through them in some vacant lot, the calculus is a lot different when there is a guy watching you.
Only everyone knows most of these cameras aren't monitored. The effect of the monitoring concern has dissolved.
And it's especially ridiculous to claim that cameras stop gang violence, which comes in ebbs and flows. Which was the "look it stopped all the murders!" There are various other absurd takes throughout this discussion, and HNers should realize that Flock has a massive PR campaign underway, and an enormous number of astroturfers spreading hilariously stupid stories about the gang members intimidated by...a camera.
No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim.
> I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount
I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance. Insurers only give discounts if there's tangible risk reduction (they're actually in it only for the money).
>No, while completing ignoring the links I gave, which go against your claim
LOL, one link observed that crimes dropped from 11...to 7. And again, these are almost certainly monitored cameras, which I *specifically* addressed, and the paper is hilariously worthless noise. I would expect that cameras in a subway system have a security guy sitting in a booth with an array of TVs, which is legitimately concerning to petty criminals. A bunch of worthless recording cameras are not.
>I appreciate the confirmation that insurers discount even unmonitored surveillance
A tiny minority of insurers offer discounts in the 2% range if you install unmonitored cameras. This discount is a pat on the head discount, and you clearly know nothing about insurance if you really think that betrays a tangible risk reduction.
Christ, insurers don't even care if you have an alarm system unless you have an active monitoring contract. Because again, while the simple thing this is a big deterrent, it actually isn't.
Which insurance agencies give discounts for unmonitored cameras? Can you cite it? I can find a couple that give a meaningless tiny discount, but overwhelmingly they only give discounts for active monitored cameras. For precisely the reason I mentioned above: Having an SD card showing that "yup, someone stole the car" is useless.
Cameras do not prevent crime. This has been eminently shown endlessly. Now ideally they help then find the culprits, but in practice this just isn't happening.