Thread

1. Someone · 1790689633 · focus · HN ↗

   I don’t think it’s fair to conclude this doesn’t work at all.

   The reason they did not get any arrests could be that sought-for criminals now avoid those stations. Given that there are relatively few of such criminals, that’s hard to prove or disprove (traffic would go down, but only by a slight amount)

   It also could mean such criminals already avoided those stations, to start with. Again, hard to prove.

   It also might mean people misbehave less now at these stations. So, did the number of incidents at such stations go down?

   That, I think should be easier to (dis)prove, but also doesn’t require running live face recognition. Recording and only looking at recordings after an issue is reported would be the better option.

   1. zug_zug · 1790690291 · focus · HN ↗

      Shouldn't the burden of proof be the other direction, that it's both cost-effective way to prevent crime? And that the cost should include not only pricing but all of the other negative externalities of removing privacy (such as deliberate abuse by bad actors inside or outside the government).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.