I like your framing of this question and look forward to reading your results! One thing that stuck out to me though is the survey option “Ring doorbell camera”. I would indicate that I do not support that opinion for a number of reasons that I don’t think reflect what you’re trying to ask.
I wouldn’t support it because it it references a specific brand whereas I would want the police to consider a variety of brands. Also, I would interpret that as a subsidy for personal purchase of a device of the sort I’m generally opposed to. Finally, it’s not clear to me what benefit the camera itself would offer and how that would be associate to the finding allocated. is the funding just to subsidize personal purchase and the cops show up to ask for the footage if they believe it’d be useful in an investigation? Would maintenance of ring cameras purchased by this program be the responsibility of the home owner or government? Would the cops have direct access to the the cameras’ feed, or would they need to solicit it from the homeowner?
So, I’d vote against even though I believe that such cameras might be useful in solving a problem I care about.
Just food for thought. Look forward to future posts!
Love the Pearson quote. Contrast that with the UIUC prof who announced his opposition to these technologies on the basis of "taking the long view." History has shown that increased surveillance of minority populations will always be used against them, he argued. I don't want to dismiss these concerns, or general privacy concerns for the whole population, too lightly. But (putting aside the implication that nothing has improved or ever will improve WRT to minority rights) I have to wonder--should these technologies be more widely adopted, what exactly does he think is going to happen that could possibly be worse than young men dying in the streets at current rates? There are certainly going to be tradeoffs, but it would be nice if we could have a grounded, non-apocalyptic discussion about what those tradeoffs will actually be.
I like your framing of this question and look forward to reading your results! One thing that stuck out to me though is the survey option “Ring doorbell camera”. I would indicate that I do not support that opinion for a number of reasons that I don’t think reflect what you’re trying to ask.
I wouldn’t support it because it it references a specific brand whereas I would want the police to consider a variety of brands. Also, I would interpret that as a subsidy for personal purchase of a device of the sort I’m generally opposed to. Finally, it’s not clear to me what benefit the camera itself would offer and how that would be associate to the finding allocated. is the funding just to subsidize personal purchase and the cops show up to ask for the footage if they believe it’d be useful in an investigation? Would maintenance of ring cameras purchased by this program be the responsibility of the home owner or government? Would the cops have direct access to the the cameras’ feed, or would they need to solicit it from the homeowner?
So, I’d vote against even though I believe that such cameras might be useful in solving a problem I care about.
Just food for thought. Look forward to future posts!
Love the Pearson quote. Contrast that with the UIUC prof who announced his opposition to these technologies on the basis of "taking the long view." History has shown that increased surveillance of minority populations will always be used against them, he argued. I don't want to dismiss these concerns, or general privacy concerns for the whole population, too lightly. But (putting aside the implication that nothing has improved or ever will improve WRT to minority rights) I have to wonder--should these technologies be more widely adopted, what exactly does he think is going to happen that could possibly be worse than young men dying in the streets at current rates? There are certainly going to be tradeoffs, but it would be nice if we could have a grounded, non-apocalyptic discussion about what those tradeoffs will actually be.