Not for fishing, it's a control system.

Think back to the capital riots/insurrection/what-ever you want to call it; they used similar systems to identify and arrest those participants. Heavily publicize how many people and who; doesn't matter if you a 63yo grandmom or a pastor, we will find you and prosecute. Showing that you are prosecuting the "normal" people is part of it, show that and you make them less likely to show up to the next thing, less likely to provide support.

The Capital has many cameras owned by the feds, so they could easily do that. Chicago, Atlanta, LA not so much. When anti-ICE action takes place with protestors in black block, going under umbrellas, makes it hard to identify and prove. With strategically placed cameras, you can see what cars came in the area. You get statistical data that shows if they are there normally there. Get enough abnormality and you get enough for a search warrant.

Can we cut to the bone a little bit? The recent crime panics are not about a partner assaulting their live-in partner or a random home burglary. There is no real "ROI" to be had.

It's purely about the unease of living in chaotic cities, the random stabbings, the shoplifting, the visible homelessness etc. Flock is the stopgap here.

Partly the "feeling" of chaos is just that, a feeling, driven significantly by algorithmic feeds feeding us every random crime from around the country 24/7. Husband murders wife in a murderous rage? No one hear's about it. Mentally ill man murders a woman on the train in a Tier 2 city, immediate nationwide breaking news.

The other part though is a real dissolution in how we take care of our mentally ill. Complex topic [1].

I think complaining about Flock is complaining about the symptom. Today we dogpile on Flock to get it cancelled, tomorrow the public will reach for something else. We have to fix the underlying disease, which is a combination of the two factors above.

[1]: https://time.com/6265241/america-care-of-mentally-ill-people...

I truly think it's safetyism. People seem to have a lower and lower tolerance for risk as society gets safer.

Since governments are run by people, this safetyism has become enshrined in law, typified by nonsense like criminalizing free-range parenting and mass surveillance.

They're absolutely being used to solve crimes and arrest people. Here's two examples:

https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/flock-cameras-help-iden...

https://www.wsbradio.com/news/local/cobb-police-credit-new-t...

There's some studies showing support but it's very hard to attribute cause to a crime rate that constantly fluctuates and has a myriad of causes

Well, they aren't really for stopping crime. They're for identifying political dissent so it can be crushed early. Stopping crime requires manpower that costs money, and if they were successfuy they'd have a harder time making the case they need even more surveillance beyond the currently monstrous amount no one could have even imagined 40 years ago.

There’s no way they captured Luigi using normal means at a random McDonald’s because of a random ID. I always figured it used some unpublished data and facial tracking and was high profile enough to use in this case with only a flimsy “parallel construction” necessary

ROI won't be measured in crimes stopped, since they're not actually intended to do that. It will be measured in votes changed or blocked.

> what's our actual ROI?

its one of the value function that makes it almost impossible to evaluate.

Lets imagine that catching someone in the Interpol list of wanted terrorists is a huge catch. You would expect the avg catch rate to be almost 0 but once one is caught the avg value of the system becomes very easy to justify.

Its the same idea as having photos of known terrorists in airports and train stations to see if guards recognise someone. But with the added benefit that the facial recognition should not miss them.

If the evaluation function is it costs X to run each day and we caught Y number of criminals who robbed phones worth Z > X then the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.

Flock claims they perform greater than 20 billion plate reads per month and allegedly are used in solving a few thousand cases per year. Their actual usefulness in those solved cases is not quantified. A customer could have used the cameras for a search that returned nothing or produced no additional leads, but Flock could still say they were used in the investigation. So the ROI is not great.

It would be interesting to see how these are justified internally. If I had to guess, it’s either excess budget being channeled into “something” or a justification to reduce street patrols/street crime.

> what's our actual ROI

In San Fransico Car Breakins dropped almost immediately by 50% and 75% in the long run since Flock cameras were introduced

Trying to be as charitable as possible, is that this is a technology that allows people (the average municipal police force) that can only solve the most obvious of crimes to solve marginally less obvious crimes - at the great expense of the general populace through loss of privacy and abuse.

This happened a few years ago before flock. Some idiot drove down the street with a pellet gun shooting at car windows. About five of us needed to pay several hundred dollars a piece to replace the glass.

My street is not "horrible", but everyone on my street would have loved to have a camera that recorded what happened. Even if we didn't get a working license plate number, it would have been useful to see what happened.

It doesn't have to be a "monster crime gap" to get people to vote for these things. It just takes some selfish idiots.

The real ROI is the change in behaviour of people constantly surveiled. We know people change their behaviour when under constant scrutiny and this why the elites want it.

We can probably calculate the investment, but how do you calculate the return? What's the value of solving a crime? Is it solely the value of preventing some future crimes by the suspect, or does it have intrinsic value?

It would be so nice if government projects and regulations came with some sort of KPI. And if they aren’t reached the thing is reverted/removed. With a bit of flexibility of course, to be sure there is room for debate. I’m sure that could be gamed in lots of ways but with the current status quo is just so much vibes

Same for chat control in the EU and all the dystopian post 911 spying agencies.

it's there to keep the well behaving citizens in check.

very authoritarian at the core.