for articles about street surveillance
@Howard Thank you for posting this article. I keep thinking about it.
In a way, the actions of Larsen is worrisome and privacy laws need to be enacted so they apply across the board to no matter who is in power of the surveillance - Larsen, the participating neighborhood coalitions (NCs), or the police department. A lot of trust is being put into Larsen and the NCs. What if they prove untrustworthy? To link this to week 3 readings: Has anyone performed a Threat Model Analysis? For example, Larsen claims in the article to be against the videos being used with facial recognition technology, but what if he wasn’t (or is lying and isn’t)?
However, privacy laws are not being passed, and civil society is recognizing that the role of police needs revision. At this time, the police do not have the resources to do much for these types of crimes. Hence the NCs and, in my city, Neighborhood Watch groups.
I admit, I wish I had had this neighborhood surveillance in place last year when my home was burglarized. The experience was traumatizing, and frustrating.
Besides filing a police report and informing my neighbors of the event, there is little to go on and the burglars are free to burglarize the next home and the continuing traumatizing others in my community, perhaps with an increased sense that they will likely never face consequences. Though it did help me develop my 'security mindset.
The Larsen example is the road I don’t want to take, but I can understand the feeling by his community of a lack of justice and choice.