July 10, 2020

"In San Francisco, where many locals push for... police reform, those same locals are tired of the break-ins."

"So how do they reconcile 'defund the police' with 'stop the smash and grabs'? [Tech businessman Chris] Larsen believes he has the answer: Put security cameras in the hands of neighborhood groups. Put them everywhere. He’s happy to pay for it.... Privatization is hardly a new thing in the city. Around a quarter of San Francisco parents send their children to private school... Plenty of people already have security cameras pointing toward the street. So would a privately owned camera network be so out of bounds?... Neighbors band together and decide where to put the cameras. They are installed on private property at the discretion of the property owner, and in San Francisco many home and business owners want them. The footage is monitored by the neighborhood coalition. The cameras are always recording. The cameras are not hidden.... When crime-fighting is put into civilian hands, new and unregulated behaviors can emerge. San Francisco’s police are controlled by many laws that do not apply to civilians. One of those laws is that the police in the city may not use facial-recognition technology.... The technology that Mr. Larsen is using is sophisticated... 'designed to scale up to do license plate reading and facial recognition'... Mr. Larsen balked at the idea of his cameras using facial recognition: 'We’re strongly opposed to facial recognition technology... Facial recognition is too powerful given the lack of laws and protections to make it acceptable.'"

From "Why Is a Tech Executive Installing Security Cameras Around San Francisco?/Chris Larsen knows that a crypto mogul spending his own money for a city’s camera surveillance system might sound creepy. He’s here to explain why it’s not" (NYT).

Taking security private and avoiding the limitations that apply to the police... who can object? Surely not the "locals" who are calling for an end to the police, but how will they get credit for their virtue if they themselves engage in behavior that is beyond what the law permits the police to do? Or is facial recognition technology different from the on-the-street brutality that has been the focus of the anti-police protests? If the answer is yes, that suggests where we are going — away from taking down criminals who are trying to resist arrest and into pervasive surveillance and tracking that ensures the ultimate capture of criminals who initially escape.

I'm assuming Larsen is bullshitting about his opposition to facial recognition. Do you think private citizens, doing their own security, are going to voluntarily take on the limitations that the law puts on the police?

114 comments:

tcrosse said...

So they identify the miscreant. Then what? Who will apprehend him?

Fernandinande said...

Rather than identify individuals, they should identify the offending group and have them speak with a social worker.

Dave Begley said...

A quarter of SF children go to private school? Why is that? Could it be that the public schools are horrible?

My childless brother in SF never had to deal with that problem.

wendybar said...

My SIL lives there, and they can't even leave there car outside because it will get broken into. There is shit on the streets everywhere...and junkies sleeping anywhere they can. But at least she lives in a multimillion dollar "apartment". She can have it. I will not ever step foot there or NYC in my lifetime again. Progressive policies suck.

Fernandinande said...

Facial recognition is too powerful given the lack of laws and protections to make it acceptable.

The main problem is probably that you need a face database before you can powerfully identify anyone.

PB said...

Facial recognition is not bad per se, but what it can be used for may be.

I perform facial recognition on a daily basis, unaided by technology.

Sebastian said...

"So how do they reconcile 'defund the police' with 'stop the smash and grabs'?"

Mysteries of the prog mind.

There'll be more.

chuck said...

Now everyone can watch as their stuff gets stolen. That's entertainment.

Balfegor said...

I read somewhere San Francisco authorities and local media stopped publishing mug shots because they were worried the information would reinforce negative stereotypes (in other words, the arrestees were mostly Blacks). Having a crapload of surveillance video of -- in all likelihood -- Black criminals committing petty crime is going to create the same problem for San Francisco progressives x10. If it doesn't work at the deterrence stage (and it probably won't), they're all going to get slimed as "racist" for capturing video that reinforces negative stereotypes about Blacks. Weren't there Pecksniffs complaining about doorbell cameras for just that reason?

In Amazon’s version of a “new neighborhood watch,” petty crimes are policed heavily, and racism is common. Video posts on Neighbors disproportionately depict people of color, and descriptions often use racist language or make racist assumptions about the people shown.

Crimso said...

Got Blogger error, if duplicate then ignore.

"When crime-fighting is put into civilian hands, new and unregulated behaviors can emerge."

I understand that they are implying that the cameras would have a deterrent effect, but the fact that they would have citizens monitoring the footage (a funny word in this era) suggests eventual apprehension of the suspects. I suppose these civilians are going to go out and track these people down, and beat the shit out of anyone who resists. So not really a "new and unregulated" behavior, just unregulated.

Automatic_Wing said...

I hear that some former CHAZ Security peeps are available for hire.

tds said...

Nice, now I wonder how much a camera torn off from its post is worth at the pawn store.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Tyler Cowen and Scott Alexander have both talked at length about the 'qualified immunity' issue as it deals with police officers and extended to 'private security'.

I really don't think people have thought this through. Switching to private security for protection won't solve the issue of liability for enforcing the law, it simply shifts the nature of the torts from an emphasis on criminal to an emphasis on civil. Do people have any idea how much/how difficult it already is insuring police departments/behavior? It's one of the reasons why only govt. actors have thus far been successful in obtaining the significant insurance indemnities they already have...they're literally backed by govt and the taxpayers.

There are private security companies out there (mostly PMC - private military contractors) who could probably obtain a suitable level of coverage ($50-100 million +) but this would be like painting a giant target on your back - as govt can tell you already - for repeated never-ending legal battles that remove any of the profit motive you might have had in the first place. It just won't be worth the hassle.

So no, private security still does not solve the problem that police departments are currently dealing with. What we really need is better, far far better technology in the non-lethal weapons department. Way better than the tasers we've got now. We need something that is 99.9% effective in ending a struggle non-lethally and making sure no officer has to go hands on, and even then the legal morass isn't solved.

Phasers on stun.

tim maguire said...

What a great idea! Tie the police's hands with a bunch of "reforms" to prevent them from abusing their authority and then hand policing powers over to private citizens because they are not hamstrung by the rules that govern the police.

That's an odd way to transform yourself into a libertarian, but if that's what it takes to help you lie to yourself about your own beliefs, then I guess it's okay.

Bill said...

Without the police a lot of crime will carry the death penalty.

Drago said...

Steve Bannon hypnotized the SF Wokesters and forced them to do this.

Some Althouse lefty regulars can explain further.

tds said...

The cameras are just the first step. The next one will be installation of the Phalanx close-in weapon system

Owen said...

As a technical matter I don't see how facial recognition technology can be kept out of the surveillance campaign. You have a sensor (camera) collecting a stream of data. The data goes somewhere: wirelessly to/through servers into a database for human analysis and use. At any point along the way, the data can be (will be) compared to reference datasets using algorithms that might be called AI, looking for face-like shapes and specific instances of faces. Doesn't FB do that all day long with your family photos?

How can this surveillance (by data handling systems) of the raw stream of surveillance camera feed NOT take place?

Horse is out of the barn. I don't think we can safely look to a technical solution given effect through promises by the system operators not to peek. Some legal recourse for overly aggressive snooping (and for mistaken ID) is probably all we can get. But in the old days everybody had nosy neighbors, swarms of inquisitive kids noticing every stranger who paused a little too long to admire somebody's property, etc. We won't have that but we'll have more and more "intelligent things" reporting on unwanted attention.

Paul said...

So are these 'private police' gonna be Vigilantes? What happens if they have to beat someone they arrest to subdue them? Will BLM? Or Homeless Lives Matter? Or Thieves Lives Matter?

Will the rich who use these private police be held accountable for any missteps?

I'm Not Sure said...

"Video posts on Neighbors disproportionately depict people of color..."

Where I used to live, there was a facebook group where members talked about stuff going on in the neighborhood. Being close to downtown, burglaries were a common subject of discussion, along with the need for neighbors to look out for one another and report suspicious activity. On the other hand, one might as well call down The Wrath Of God should one endeavor to actually describe a person seen acting in a suspicious manner unless it was a white male. Because racism.

Heartless Aztec said...

Police actually protect the criminal class from ordinary citizens. Justice was meted out long before police forces or facial recognition. The cameras are just a new wrinkle in justice more immediate.

AustinRoth said...

Gee, non-stop monitoring by “community groups”. What could possibly go wrong? Big Brother by another name.

stlcdr said...

Why not put up gates, too?

Judge, jury and executioner?

I don't really have too much of a problem with community cameras, I suppose. It's an extension of neighborhood watch, but you need to realize the repercussions.

Kevin said...

Citizens using facial recognition that the authorities cannot sounds to me a lot like the extraordinary rendition or whatever it was called during the WoT where the US would extradite terrorists to countries where there was more of a blind eye toward torture.

But that comparison will be lost on the lefties in SF for sure.

Otherwise, there is the obvious Then What? So you identify the suspects. Then what? Torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers? I kinda doubt it. They are going to find very, very quickly that the criminal class is not subject to the same carrots and sticks that entice or dissuade law abiding citizens.

Unknown said...

So you put up cameras and capture a face. There are three choices.

-- do nothing.

-- have the police find and arrest the face. But the police are defunded, and if one of them does capture the face, the DAs you elected will dismiss the charges.

-- Paul Kersey.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The main problem is probably that you need a face database before you can powerfully identify anyone.

There is at least one company working on that.
https://www.wired.com/story/clearview-ai-scraping-web/

Anyway, I'm going to quote Glen Reynolds, "the police are there to protect the criminals from the citizens."

"In the western United States, both before and after the Civil War, the primary purpose of these committees was to maintain law and order and administer summary justice where governmental law enforcement was inadequate. In the newly settled areas, vigilance committees provided security, and mediated land disputes. In ranching areas, they ruled on ranch boundaries, registered brands, and protected cattle and horses. In the mining districts, they protected claims,[citation needed] settled claim disputes, and attempted to protect miners and other residents. In California, some residents formed vigilance committees to take control from officials whom they considered to be corrupt. This took place during the trial of Charles Cora (Husband of Belle Cora) and James Casey in San Francisco during 1856.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilance_committee

tjl said...

Hasn't it occurred to Larsen that capturing thefts on video is pointless unless you capture the thief? The smash-and-grab demographic won't be deterred by mere embarrassment or they wouldn't be smashing and grabbing on public streets.

All the demands to defund or defang the police ultimately lead to people arming themselves and falling back on self-help. Not unlike gangbangers in Chicago.

Owen said...

Heartless Aztec @ 8:48 AM: "Police actually protect the criminal class from ordinary citizens..." Yes. As Seamus Heaney put it so wonderfully in his poem "The Tollund Man," "Out there in Jutland/In the old man-killing parishes/I will feel lost,/Unhappy and at home."

"Shoot, shovel and shut up" is a time-honored saying.

walter said...

Watch shit happen..

DanTheMan said...

>>When crime-fighting is put into civilian hands, new and unregulated behaviors can emerge.

Recording crime on video is not crime fighting. Removing those who commit crimes from the street and locking them up for years at a time is crime fighting.

"Unregulated civilian justice" is often called "lynching".

tommyesq said...

Sounds like only a step or two away from the angry mob theory of justice.

richlb said...

I like the idea of privatizing corruption.

Ray - SoCal said...

Cameras will give a false sense of security. The Atlantic had a great article about a Lady who stole a lot of packages, and no prosecution, and this is before the latest DA that went even further. I thought there was an althouse post on this.

The Porch Pirate of Potrero Hill Can’t Believe It Came to This
When a longtime resident started stealing her neighbors’ Amazon packages, she entered a vortex of smart cameras, Nextdoor rants, and cellphone surveillance.
The Atlantic

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

So, security for the affluent? And those dusky folks can just kick rocks?

I've always said there's no one more racist than a White middle-class Prog but, jeez, they're not even trying to hide it anymore. The superficial outpouring of Prog Virtue has given them license to live their lives in a way that grinds people of color to dust.

Static Ping said...

So you are going to eliminate the police to replace them with a more intrusive, less regulated police. What could possibly go wrong?

Paddy O said...

Call it something like the San Francisco Vigilance Committee

narciso said...

it's known as a bloc committee, in venezuela they call it the colectivos,

Paddy O said...

Call it something like the San Francisco Vigilance Committee"

rcocean said...

In other words, the rich and powerful will insulate themselves from crime, while foisting a lawless jungle on everyone else. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Look at schools in NYC or DC. Or look at neighborhoods in NYC, where you have private Orthodox Jews patrolling their neighborhoods.

What if you can't afford a private school, or you don't have a ethnic/neighborhood police force? Well, too bad, so sad.

rcocean said...

You have to also realize that SF has one of the lowest conviction rates in the USA, and the DA there won't prosecute large numbers of low level crimes. And of course, foreigners aka illegal aliens are welcome to go there and commit crimes.

Private security guard, cameras, and "community policing' is a way for the left-wing Rich to have their cake and eat it to. They can hate the police AND stay safe. Too bad all you little people don't have that luxury. Maybe you can leave SF and go live in Bakersfield. You'd think people would get upset at this attitude, but 90% of SF are Democrats. And they just ACCEPT. Democrats are sheep who follow their leaders - NO MATTER WHAT.

mezzrow said...

Wear a balaclava and bring a can of spray paint. Disable camera.

Crime follows.

Then where's your precious evidence?

Amateurs.

rcocean said...

BTW, notice who the R leadership in Calf and in the USA is nowhere to be found. Except for Trump, they don't care because its not about $$$ or helping the Chamber of Commerce. Mitch and Liz Cheney couldn't even be bothered to defend George Washington or attack the riots. No $$ in it.

rehajm said...

The main problem is probably that you need a face database before you can powerfully identify anyone.

If only there were a book a faces...a 'facebook' where people could go and look at the criminals pictures posted for all to see...

I suspect techie guy is so enamored with social media he expects the threat of the cancel culture will be sufficient deterrent to stop the criminals

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

I wonder what laws there are that cover data retention/deletion from government-owned cameras that wouldn't apply to this private group.

Joe Smith said...

If the NYT likes it, it's probably a bad idea.

These people don't care that they are on camera. Especially now when masks will be the urban chic look for the foreseeable future.

In 2015 my wife and I returned from almost two years living in Tokyo, one of the largest and safest cities in the world. We had sold our cars before we left because they were getting old and we didn't know how long we would be away.

We rented a car the day we got back, and a few days later my wife had a business meeting in San Francisco. We knew of the car break-ins (I had witnessed these window smash-and-grabs in broad daylight before we left) so she put everything in the trunk of the car in San Mateo before driving north to the meeting.

She parks near Fisherman's wharf (is that sexist?) and when she returns from the meeting the back window of the car is smashed. They used the trunk release and stole her backpack, phone, and laptop.

Like an idiot I called the police and reported it. They said they couldn't do a thing about it and gave me a number for insurance purposes. They wouldn't look at the car or check for fingerprints. I'm not sure why they were busy as San Francisco was, even then, pretty much a lawless city.

Using the 'find my iPhone' app I tracked the phone down through some very seedy parts of the city. Finally confronted a mentally ill crazy lady pushing a shopping cart and got the phone back (after she hurled it into the street). The laptop was gone forever.

Moral of the story, get the hell out of big, blue cities if you can. A guy with tech money shouldn't have an issue but I do understand that's it's the principle of the thing. I was born and raised in California at a time when the school system was among the best in the nation and Democrats were for a strong military and lower taxes (don't laugh).

The state has gone to hell. The only reason we stay is because we live in a nice area, the weather is spectacular, and my wife is still working in tech. When she retires it will be sad to go, but almost a must-do.

Oh well...it was nice while it lasted.


robother said...

This article is smoking gun evidence that Tech executives have evolved from underpants gnomes.

CWJ said...

"Gee, non-stop monitoring by “community groups”. What could possibly go wrong? Big Brother by another name."

Should you have one for your neighborhood, think how competent and even-handed your Home Owners Association is.

Michael K said...

Someone should read the history of The Bow Street Runners.

They were employed by the rich, of course. The poor were screwed.

Another old lawyer said...

When it comes to 'smash and grabs', it's not only the police or lack of police, it's the local prosecutor. I've seen a few videos over the last few months labeled as being from SF, in which people were walking into stores, leisurely grabbing merchandise, and walking out because they know that they won't be prosecuted under the prosecutor's publicly announced policies. (IIRC, prosecutor has leftist credentials that few can meet, starting with prosecutor's family and upbringing and through Soros backing.)

Without restoring the expectation chain from arrest, to prosecution, to conviction/plea bargain, to real consequences (and probation isn't a consequence), it's not going to get better. The more one or more of those links becomes less and less expected, the worse it will get.

walter said...

From May 2019:
"Crime has been ignored for so long, and it’s gotten so huge. Serial repeat offenders have no problem making bail, especially drug dealers, as they see it as the cost of doing business.”
Some citizens are attempting to fight back. Frank Noto cofounded Stop Crime: Neighborhood for Criminal Justice Accountability after an onslaught of break-ins. Neighbors had come together for an art project, which drew crowds—but also crime rings. First tourists’ cars were hit, then residents’ cars, and then homes. So the group started a court-watch program. They attended hearings and observed decisions, and they noted a casual judicial approach to these cases. Their presence didn’t go unnoticed. Judges know that they’re being scrutinized; one actually recused himself. “We have to take a stand,” says Noto. “We talked to one guy, an electrician, who’s been burglarized six times, and all of his tools have been stolen. All we want is for the DA and judges to take this seriously.
As for the San Francisco Police, they’re doing their best. “It looks like hell here, but we are getting those people,” says San Francisco Police Department Captain Carl Fabbri, who helms the Tenderloin police station. “In our district, robberies are down 17 percent, burglaries are down 28 percent, and auto break-ins are down 26 percent. These results don’t just happen. We’re getting the people off the streets even for two days. When they’re in jail, we see an impact.”

The community benefits when criminals are incapacitated by being locked up, but Fabbri, like Tung and Noto, thinks that low-level criminals are released too quickly. “We could be keeping them and be giving services while they’re in jail,” says Fabbri. “It could really be effective. We need changes in the law and policies, to amend Proposition 47 and strengthen quality-of-life laws.” Bail, too, should remain in place. “There is so much support of the police here, more than you’d think,” says Fabbri. “Social media has turned the tide. If you follow what we’re doing, you can see the difference we are making.”
LINK
fyi:
SFPD Tenderloin Twitter feed

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Tell me more about "white flight". I've heard it's a cause of urban decay.

Rory said...

"Having a crapload of surveillance video of -- in all likelihood -- Black criminals committing petty crime is going to create the same problem for San Francisco progressives x10."

DC's Georgetown shopping district put together an electronic alert network to let each other know when suspicious characters were in the neighborhood. It was closed down when it turned out that they reported every black person they saw. This will go the same way.

Joe Smith said...

"Or look at neighborhoods in NYC, where you have private Orthodox Jews patrolling their neighborhoods."

Back in the day (as recently as the early 2000s), especially in large east coast cities, the safest place for anyone to be was in the Italian section. Whether it was mafia influence, which was a real thing, or the phenomenon of ethnic minorities sticking together, non-white outsiders were tolerated in those neighborhoods but never welcomed.

I could tell you about Trenton in the mid-'90s. East of a particular street was a black neighborhood...cars on blocks, street lights broken, bars on windows. West of that street was the Italian section. The lights were on, couples walked hand-in-hand eating ice cream, the houses were blue collar but tidy. Especially if you were a woman, the Italian section was the safest place you could be at night.

gilbar said...

So how do they reconcile 'defund the police' with 'stop the smash and grabs'? [Tech businessman Chris] Larsen believes he has the answer: Put security cameras in the hands of neighborhood groups. Put them everywhere.

Just do it The Chicago Way;
Allow your 'neighborhood groups' to carry guns, and shot at ANYONE they want
SURE! quite a few bystanders will be killed as well, but AT LEAST, it's not the popo doing it

Skeptical Voter said...

Paddy O is right. In San Francisco everything old is new again. They had their Vigilance Committee in the 1850s This new model neighborhood surveillance camera vigilance committee is almost there---except they are not likely to want to hang somebody, The 1850s version had no such compunction. And like today, San Francisco had feces in the streets in the 1850s. Horse feces. But considering what the mayor and supervisors of San Francisco County are putting out today, they still have a lot of horse feces--so there is that.

Ken B said...

I assume he is not bullshitting. I assume he has accepted the religious belief that facial recognition is racist.

cacimbo said...

To confuse and paint a false picture media often mention Trayvon Martin when discussing police shootings.Martin was not shot by police, he was shot by neighborhood watch.

This is about as racist as it gets.The left defunds the police.Then rich, mostly white neighborhoods arrange private security/surveillance.The poor mostly black/brown communities turn into dangerous hell holes.

hombre said...

Years ago when I was still a prosecutor and the media still reported stuff instead of making it up, the Oakland DA distributed an article discussing why the burglary rate went down during an Oakland police strike.

The conclusion was that gun purchases went up and burglars interviewed - legitimate confidential sources - were afraid of being shot by home owners who had no access to police. An interesting lesson.

gilbar said...

Do y'all see, NOW, Why the rich white women of the country keep talking up 'white privilege'?

While 'white privilege' DOESN'T exist; RICH PRIVILEGE sure as hell does

we are now, going to live in a world; where
Rich people (white/black/asian) will live in gated communities with private security
everyone else will live in a barrio, without police, without law

Coming soon, to a town near you!

mikee said...

To stop wasting police time on petty theft in SF, just allow all residents to take a tax credit equal to the value or repair cost for any stolen or vandalized property reported to an online city database. Then the citizens will have been made whole without involvement of police, discomfort to the malefactor, or changes in city government priorities.

I think a policy like this would last all of one day before the city was bankrupt by claims.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

San Francisco, home of the Vigilance Committee. Everything old is new again.

PM said...

Not a capital B in the entire article.
But anyone who lives here knows the deal.
Ergo, the cams are racist.

Todd said...

I think I have seen this play out somewhere before. Where was that? Oh, I remember now, the old west!

Towns would get tired of the lawlessness and hire/elect a man to protect the town and enforce a code of conduct. Now, what did they call that guy.... Oh yeah, they called him a "Sheriff". He was accountable to the town and he would have some "deputies" to help him. Eventually he reported to the Mayor who was his "boss" and would keep him in line for the town.

Maybe we could try something like that. You know, an accountable force of protective folks. But "Sheriff" is so old fashioned. Need a new catchy word. How about.... "Police"? Sure, why not?

What, we already have that? Really? Then where did all of this "fuss" come from? Oh, I see. Democrat controlled towns, cities, and states are not properly overseeing their "police" forces and so the folks these "police" are supposed to protect are sad. Well why don't they get their elected officials to [I don't know] DO THEIR DAMN JOBS?

gerry said...

The footage is monitored by the neighborhood coalition.

Which members of the neighborhood coalition will volunteer to monitor the cameras on the graveyard shift?

Churchy LaFemme: said...

So.

Batman is coming.

And he'll be more Frank Miller than Adam West.

gspencer said...

"tired of the break-ins"

Nelson, Nelson Muntz, are you available for a consultation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

gspencer said...

Where's Paladin when you need him?

I mean, he lives in your town,

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CloAAOxyRNJSdHUb/s-l640.jpg

Ann Althouse said...

“ So they identify the miscreant. Then what? Who will apprehend him?”

Robots.

It’s high tech.

Caligula said...

You can view your networked camera being stolen on someone else's networked camera! Ain't that great?

What ya gonna do when (the swarm) comes for you- point your camera at them?

Unknown said...

You go san francsisco, you are already stupid, no need to change now. As the above said, when they get video who are they going to give it to? Police are defunded. The democrats have removed bail requirements and let them right back on the street.

It is amazing how liberals ( as Thomas Sowell said ) just can't think past phase one.

Static Ping said...

Ann: Robots

Robocop is in Detroit and I doubt they would loan him to the Bay Area. Anyway, if he did roam Silicon Valley some disgruntled tech employees would probably hack him. If we are lucky they won't use him as a sex bot.

Jupiter said...

"Not a capital B in the entire article."

Heh. I like that. Why use the N-word, when you have the capital B letter?

Michael K said...

The conclusion was that gun purchases went up and burglars interviewed - legitimate confidential sources - were afraid of being shot by home owners who had no access to police. An interesting lesson.

I remember an interview with a burglar on radio many years ago. He would walk down the street (yes, that long ago) looking for windows open. Once he crawled in a window and saw two eyes looking at him. They were cat's eyes and too far apart to be a house cat. He got out in a hurry.

Achilles said...

Fernandinande said...
Facial recognition is too powerful given the lack of laws and protections to make it acceptable.

The main problem is probably that you need a face database before you can powerfully identify anyone.

This would take a shockingly short amount of time.

Drivers License databases would be the vector I would start with.

Achilles said...

Facial recognition isn't the worst thing. You can wear a mask.

Stride recognition is just as accurate in field situations.

Pretty soon DNA identification will be the norm. A piece of loose skin or hair or bodily fluid. Little robots will collect the stuff.

The time for the Butlerian Jihad is coming and going.

Heartless Aztec said...

And to follow Althouse's train of thought the robot can aphrehend,judge and mete out punishment all in a tidy manner. That way we humans won't have to be disturbed or get our hand or principals dirtied up.
Anyone for robots lasering off the hands of thieves?

Richard Dolan said...

What happens in the public sphere is public. So what's the big deal? Big Brother is the main concern, not Karen-world. Whatever problems arise in Karen-world can be dealt with through the tort law system for misuse (to be defined legislatively, not by the Karens).

As for facial recognition technology, it's already routinely in use in the criminal justice system, albeit only the low-tech, frequently inaccurate version -- witness identification testimony, perp sketches, police line-ups, etc. Who's in favor of prosecutions and convictions based on the inaccurate, frequently wrong, and easily influenced by bias confirmation versions of face recognition technology currently in use, raise your hands.

Answer: The usual suspects.

Bob said...

You can have the nicest, highest-resolution cameras, covering every square foot of public and private spaces. Something though that goes hand in hand with "defund the police" is "don't charge these poor people for property crimes." Even the dumbest criminals know that the penalties are becoming sparse to non-existent. So who cares if there's high quality recording? Some miscreants would probably be happy to put it on their own social media sights.

Gusty Winds said...

With all of San Francisco's outdoor defecation, I thought it was illegal to spy on people and take their picture in a bathroom. Could be a problem.

walter said...

Speaking of cameras, about time we see that frat boy/boogie-loo attack on Althea Bernstein...

wholelottasplainin' said...

mezzrow said...
Wear a balaclava and bring a can of spray paint. Disable camera.

Crime follows.

Then where's your precious evidence?

Amateurs.
****************

The Claymore mine I've hidden on my porch is triggered to go off when my camera is intentionally disabled.

Game set match

gerry said...

Wear a balaclava

I love Greek pastry.

wendybar said...

Hey, and they have Mayor Chesa Boudin, whom Non repentant Domestic Terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn brought up (his parents were in prison. David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, members of the domestic-terror group Weather Underground who robbed the Brinks truck in Nyack, NY and killed the guards) since they skirted prison themselves and instead got their degrees and taught our kids how to hate at the University of Illinois in Chicago...get the connections yet???

Chesa doesn't believe in laws. Great job San Francisco....

Michael K said...

You can have the nicest, highest-resolution cameras, covering every square foot of public and private spaces. Something though that goes hand in hand with "defund the police" is "don't charge these poor people for property crimes."

Personally I like the camera that al Qeada used on Massoud the leader of the Northern Alliance on 9/11. Took his picture and killed him with one click.

n.n said...

The left-right, totalitarian-anarchist nexus is leftist.

wild chicken said...

They'll need a private security force. Like they hired in Sinaloa.

wild chicken said...

They'll need a private security force. Like they hired in Sinaloa.

eddie willers said...

I hope they use those spooky robot dogs. I know I'd stop on a dime if I saw one.

Unknown said...

Let's assume your cameras identify the perp and you don't have police. Now what? How does that help? Do you go to his homeless encampment and beat him? Go to his apartment and find out he has a gun? It is idiotic.

Chris N said...

I live with tech folks in Seattle.

The politics is IPB (Insane progressive babies) with real Marxists and Socialists to their Left

I've always figured there are enough men (some women) who have money, decent work, status etc. to prevent the punitive, resentment filled radicals from exacting too high a toll.

If that goes, the city's in deeper shit

Gk1 said...

This is hilarious watching progressives trying to wiggle out of the "NO POLICE!" trap they set for themselves. It's like watching videos of orangutans getting their hands stuck into a jar because they won't let go of an orange.

How will any of this work with private citizens taking it upon themselves videotaping "wrong doers" on city streets? The last civil rights icon that was videotaped *cough*cough* "jogging" through an uncompleted house wound up in a bad way. Gee, if there were some professional organization or city service that could fill in gap here? Hmm.

GingerBeer said...

"Around a quarter of San Francisco parents send their children to private school..." What does that add up to, about 14?

Krumhorn said...

Wasn’t one of the demands in the Seattle struggle sessions was that white people need to abandon the insistence on personal safety? Maybe I read that wrong.

- Krumhorn

DavidUW said...

Every major city in America is beginning the process of losing 20-30%+ of their population over the next 20 years.
Just like the last time.

Get out, sell your properties if you own them, and don't go back for at least 2, if not 3 decades.

MadTownGuy said...

AustinRoth said...
"Gee, non-stop monitoring by “community groups”. What could possibly go wrong? Big Brother by another name."

The other name: HOA Police.

dgstock said...

“They'll need a private security force. Like they hired in Sinaloa.“

Potrero Posse? Richmond Rangers? I don’t see SF vigilantes as menacing, what with the negative view of firearms. Summary justice not likely to be more than severe social shaming and proffers of rehabilitation. Hardened criminals can’t stand that brutality.

GingerBeer said...

There's never a social worker around when you need one.

Unknown said...

The plan is for an exodus from the cities. This will bankrupt the owners of rental buildings due to high vacancies. Single homeowners will need to sell at a loss. The plunge in property values will allow billionaires like George Soros to scoop up properties at the lowest prices of a lifetime. These tech billionaires sitting on all this cash don't want to buy up property at sky-high prices. How can you profit from that? They want to drive prices down to once-in-a generation lows and then buy. The little property owners have no chance.

Forbes said...

How well does facial recognition work with a hoodie, a face mask and sunglasses?

How soon before the miscreants learn to disable the video camera? If they smash and grab your property, how hard is it to destroy a video camera? If they don't respect your property, don't expect them not to learn how to overcome your surveilance.

This country is becoming really stupid. Idiocracy has got nuttin' on 2020.

KellyM said...


@Joe Smith

I can attest to your assertion abput moving to the Italian section of town for safety. I was encouraged by many casual acquaintances to move to the North End of Boston when I was just out of college and looking for an apartment. This was in the mid-80s when it was assumed (for good reason) that the neighborhood was mobbed up (it was). But every street corner had a hawk-eyed nonna who knew who did and didn't belong and that made all the difference. I ended up moving to the scruffy side of Beacon Hill, not far away.

Re: Trenton neighborhoods: could you be referring to Chambersburg (The Burg), as written with mostly truth and a lot of humor by Janet Evanovich?

Kevin said...

LOL.

With Chesea Boudin as district attorney, all these measures are useless.

Someone could break-in to a house, tracked by a dozen cameras, and Chesa still won't prosecute.

"Crime of poverty", donchaknow.

The only people Chesa is interested in prosecuting are the cops and anyone harming a criminal.

Kevin said...

LOL.

With Chesea Boudin as district attorney, all these measures are useless.

Someone could break-in to a house, tracked by a dozen cameras, and Chesa still won't prosecute.

"Crime of poverty", donchaknow.

The only people Chesa is interested in prosecuting are the cops and anyone harming a criminal.

JAORE said...

"They'll need a private security force."

Lotta recently retired cops are becoming available. Now if the HOA shields them while they do the dirty work of actually confronting the goblins.... they might work cheap.

Birkel said...

No Leftist Collectivist is going to question their a priori assumptions.

Will Althouse?

Michael K said...

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at these fools.

Not liberal said...

This is a problem that has been solved hundreds of times: organized crime, the mob, yakuza, protection rackets etc.

Bill said...

I am ok with these people getting the government they demand.

Gk1 said...

Traditionally isn't this why immigrant neighborhood's paid gangs for protection because the cops wouldn't bother? Why not just go back to that system? I would happily pay MS-13 or the russian mafia to deal with amazon package stealers and smash and grab artists. A few years of that would clean up things nicely. If you make crime cost free why wouldn't you just get more of it?

Bunkypotatohead said...

Those cameras will capture nice images of their neighborhoods burning when the BLM "protesters" visit San Fran to complain about all this racist photography.

elkh1 said...

You got the surveillance recordings, then what? Go get the criminal yourself? With what? A gun? Be a vigilante? Go to the police with your recordings? But there is no police, there is only private security. Arrest and detain the criminal and get sue for wrongful arrest, may be kidnapping.

Greg the class traitor said...

tcrosse said...
So they identify the miscreant. Then what? Who will apprehend him?

So, with the first comment, the conversation's over.

Great, you've got the smash and grab artist on camera. You've even got his license plate on camera.

So, do you go to the police, and ask them to look up that license plate, and arrest the criminal?

Or, do you just spread his information around, so some vigilante in your group can hunt him down and kill him? I guess it's best to get rid of the police, so they don't arrest your vigilantes.

Do you set up a scanner so the next time that license plate comes in your area, you get an alert, so you can send your brute squad after him?

If you need solid proof that "technocratic meritocracy" is utter garbage, and the SF techies are credentialed idiots, nothing more, well, here it is. A bunch of fundamentally stupid people with credentials unable to figure out the obvious consequences of their actions.

bagoh20 said...

Our neighborhood shares their porch cams. You wanna see profiling? This will get you plenty. The cams capture crimes happening all the time, often the same people over and over. It helps a little, mostly getting lost dogs home, but criminals only get caught if the cops happen to be there, with guns and force. Lefties are especially dumb. They have a real knack for making problems worse, or creating new ones for no good reason.

Martin said...

And with no police, no prosecutors willing to indict and try, and no courts willing to consider convicting, the videos will make a nice record of the day you were robbed and beaten up, but nothing more (except $$$$$ for whomever gets the contracts to install and run them).

Or, is this a call for vigilante justice?

Michael S. Kochin said...

San Francisco, once and future home of the vigilante.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Committee_of_Vigilance