I don’t think it should be legal to anonymously create a facebook, instagram,X,tiktok,reddit account. Without having accounts traceable back to an identify illegal behavior never stops and the person is never held accountable. Online crimes but are unenforceable as long as anonymity is permitted. There is little to no good that comes from anonymously creating an account compared to the massive amounts of harm. Implementing restrictions does not affect 99.99% of the population and only filters out the tiny minority of people who represent a disproportional amount of harm on the platform.
I still think anonymity should be permitted on tor, i2p and less popular sites.
there are bad actors in life. And its a problem. But you don’t want to live in a totalitarian state for fear of them. You don’t want to give up liberty and freedom for safety.
Bad actors in life are tied to their real identity if you catch them and imprison them they do not continue to commit the crime. We dont allow someone to walk into a store assault someone and then come back with a different change of clothes and do it again.
But online the can continue to commit the crime over and over with no consequences. Its not totalitarian to know who people are.
they absolutely are not. They where a mask in that scenario and no I don’t want more cctv to deal with crime.
Wearing a mask is not the same as anonymity on the internet.
Its a close enough analogy and your idea is the same reactionary type of solution.
CCTV does reduce crime and we do not have a problem of it being used against normal people. So even if it were the same you’re saying my solution would be an effective one at curbing the issue with little to no downsides except theoretical ones that upset internet schizo’s.
They are different because the robber with the mask can rob a store and when they are caught(banned) they do not come back. For internet stuff they can rob the store get banned and instantly make new accounts and do this at scale all with zero risk.
Yeah many folk have a problem with ubiquitous cameras in the public space. I think we just disagree here. If you are fine with cameras then yeah you are going to be fine with this online solution. People like myself are not fine with it at all.
Then you can go into the schizo bucket. Most people are fine with it some may not like it but they accept it is necessary to reduce risk of crime. No one worries like oh no someone is spying on me through the CCTV no one has time for that and no one cares enough about you to do so.
or schizo is thinking they know what everyone thinks. I guess you only had one nay sayer given your reply. Oh wait I looked through the post and you have many people disagree. So by no one and most you really mean im going to say whatever I want and be disengenous.
As a CCTV consultant, no it doesn’t.
Sure it does. You might find cases where it doesnt but most findings state that it does. The only thing that it across the board does not reduce is violent crime which tracks with expectations.
Nah.
What reduces crime is strong social nets, good government services, and well paying employment.
All cameras do is reduce insurance premiums. In retail environments, a loss prevention team can reduce shrink with good training, good policies and procedures. They can do that without cameras. In entertainment venues and residential common spaces, good policies, procedures, and well trained staff do more for those places then anything else. I’ve consulted on the design and worked in any of those spaces. The cameras are at worst a toy, and at best one tool for an incident that is already ongoing.
If you don’t have a human operating the camera systems as their job, the cameras do nothing.